Re: netsync with port forwarding

[Michael Raskin]

>> >Netsync relies on some underlying conventions on the use of TCP for a 
>> >two-way connexion.  Is there some other protocol that shares these 
>> >conventions?  If so I could tell the modem that this other protocol is 
>> >now being used on port 4691.
>> 
>> I would frankly start with tcpdump on both sides while trying to connect
>> from outside. Routers can break so many things it is not even funny…
>
>I know.  A port forwarding NAT is an intense kludge.

Static port forwarding doesn't need to be, however routers sometimes 
have a ton of interesting modes that make things complicated, usually 
not well named.

Also, it could be that the router port forwards only connections from
outside, while the ISP by default blocks incoming traffic on unknown 
ports. In the latter case there are two options: actually believing it
is good for safety, and letting through the ports explicitly requested
(if a person can explain what port is needed, this person can probably
be made to clean up their PC if malware gets too annoying for the 
network); or trying to make residential connections less attractive 
compared to business connections (doesn't work well in the world of 
cheap VPS, but…)

>There was once a publicly accessible site of monotone repositories 
>called something like mtn-prjk.net -- a kind of github for monotone.  
>That would have accomplished my desire.  Alas!  it exists no more.

mtn-host.prjek.net, yes…

>Does netsync support IPv6?
>
>If so there will still be the question of whether the public and the 
>coffee ships do.)

In principle Monotone even has some code conditional on IPv6 being used.
Among ISPs, both coverage and brokenness vary for IPv6…