You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I’m trying to test this out but am a little confused by intended usage. Should this be able to work to connect two clients behind the same NAT?
I’ve set up the server to run on my desktop and am forwarding port 6776. I can bring up the client on the same or another machine at home and when I enter the public IP, I see that the server receives messages (I’ve added logging to confirm).
However, punching fails. Shouldn’t it be possible to test with even just one client because the sample client spawns both a listener thread and then actually attempts the hole punch?
Thank you!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Note: I understand that hole punching is useful for connecting two machines behind different NATs but I’m just doing some initial testing within a single network.
Understood — can the server run on the same network as one of the clients, however? Trying to understand how many different NATs are required for testing.
On Sep 27, 2022, at 3:38 AM, Albin Corén ***@***.***> wrote:
You don't need to punch the NAT for same network usage, so no this will not work.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Hi,
I’m trying to test this out but am a little confused by intended usage. Should this be able to work to connect two clients behind the same NAT?
I’ve set up the server to run on my desktop and am forwarding port 6776. I can bring up the client on the same or another machine at home and when I enter the public IP, I see that the server receives messages (I’ve added logging to confirm).
However, punching fails. Shouldn’t it be possible to test with even just one client because the sample client spawns both a listener thread and then actually attempts the hole punch?
Thank you!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: