Am 18.05.2010 um 13:42 schrieb Michael Jurke:
> just a question about our NetTransferModes (SOCKS5, IBB, Jingle/UDP,
> Jingle/TCP etc.). Up to now, every transport class is fixed to his
> transfer mode.
> However, Christopher mentioned it would be nice to have SOCKS5/
> direct, SOCKS5/indirect and SOCKS5/wrapped (better name?) modes,
> too. These modes are only known after establishing and testing a
> session, so while establishing we wouldn't know the specialized type
> and have to use a more general SOCKS5 one (for user feedback and
> debug output).
> Do we want specialized types and should they be of the type
> NetTransferMode without hierarchy? Any suggestions?
I think it would be sufficient to distinguish between SOCKS5/direct
and SOCKS5/mediated. SOCKS5/direct always implies that a direct
bidirectional P2P connection is used, SOCKS5/mediated is a connection
over a SOCKS5 proxy. I think there is no additional informational
value to know if its bidirectional by using two SOCKS5 streams or just
For debugging output and feedback there should be a general SOCKS5
type without an extra hierarchy.