Hi,
What type of network connection scenarios is Pulse designed to handle?
Can I expect Pulse to work out of box on any type of network connection in the future?
I am asking because I am concerned. I want to use Pulse, but I wonder how reliable it is and how much manual intervention I need to do to sync files.Thanks for the answers in advance,
bastian
I’m not sure I understand the question. Syncthing should work fine over the internet. What kind of connection and manual intervention are you worried about, specifically?
I am a student. I often go to the university where they have a public Wi-Fi for us to use. Probably behind NAT, but that usually doesn’t make a difference for me while using software. I have two computers running Pulse, connected to this wi-fi but they can’t connect to each other (I have added them as nodes on each side).
So I am wondering whether this is something related to a bug or if Pulse only works out of box on some specific network connections or?
Personally I think especially on public wi-fi’s it is useful to have encrypted private file sharing. But when I read the documentation it sounded like you needed to have control over your internet connection, ie. do port forwarding when you were under NAT, access your router or perform tunneling.
If you have a NAT on both sides and no port forwarding and no upnp, the devices will not be able to connect.
If you have a third device which is accessible over the public internet (not behind a NAT or has UPNP), then your two other devices should get in sync, as they both would use the third device on the public internet as a reference point.
This is how I use syncthing, which gives me Dropbox like behaviour as the worst case, and P2P in the best case.
There is some work being done which might potentially move syncthing to use UDP instead of TCP, and when that happens, we will have the possibility (not sure if anybody will do this) to implement NAT punch-through…
Many wifi networks, especially ones for public use, are configured to disallow traffic directly between clients. If this is the case then syncthing has no chance. A third, external, device as Audrius suggests will be a way around this.
Hi Audris,
If you have a third device which is accessible over the public internet (not behind a NAT or has UPNP), then your two other devices should get in sync, as they both would use the third device on the public internet as a reference point.
This is how I use syncthing, which gives me Dropbox like behaviour as the worst case, and P2P in the best case.
Thanks for the clarification, it’s nice to know how you make it work. So this third device, what kind of device is it? And do you pay for two internet connections then or?
There is some work being done which might potentially move syncthing to use UDP instead of TCP, and when that happens, we will have the possibility (not sure if anybody will do this) to implement NAT punch-through…
Well, I’m happy that it is a future possibility, even though it sounds like it isn’t on the roadmap for now. But I hope it would be something to consider if there is enough interest in making Pulse more versatile via UDP and NAT punch-through. It’s a tough market. (-:
Many wifi networks, especially ones for public use, are configured to disallow traffic directly between clients. If this is the case then syncthing has no chance.
That is sad to hear. Especially considering how insecure public wifi’s are becoming more and more available everywhere. That’s where I need security the most )-:
I just have a VPS running with a public IP which acts as my third device.