Nearly all of these new(er) user-mode transports run over UDP, so you can hole-punch and port forward just the same. Some which don't can nevertheless be tunneled, to the same effect.

Ultimately I don't have any skin in this game though. Just trying to save someone from reinventing a perfectly good wheel ;)

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jay F <> wrote:
My first concern was that I and about everyone else only has TCP/UDP
port forwarding, but at least for the first:

UDT uses UDP to transfer bulk data with its own reliability control and
congestion control mechanisms. Multiple UDT flows can share a single UDP
port, thus a firewall can open only one UDP port for all UDT connections.

The latter appears not so friendly to NAT.

On 3/23/2013 3:30 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> If you're considering a datagram protocol, you might be interested in
> some more modern alternatives to UDP:
> UDT: Breaking the Data Transfer Bottleneck
> Stream Control Transmission Protocol

Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
Bitcoin-development mailing list