There is usually no need for upnp when discovery is disabled directly or as as a result of manual address configuration.
The user may still want it for hole punching but what few users who have manually configured IPs or disabling discovery but still need UPNP can probably find and enable it.
There is _usually_ no need for upnp when discovery is
disabled directly or as as a result of manual address
configuration.
The user may still want it for hole punching but what
few users who have manually configured IPs or disabling
discovery but still need UPNP can probably find and
enable it.
utACK
I really dont think discovery is sufficiently related here. NACK on this, but I think #6795 is fine.
I agree that it's not needed if it defaults to off, but I'm curious as to why @bluematt thinks discovery isn't sufficiently related! I would think that a user manually setting externalip and/or discovery=0 almost (but not quite) guarantees that they do not need upnp on (and if they do-- they probably know that)
UPnP isn't just about IP discovery? Indeed it's useful for that but we don't even really need that now, no? If it's not about discovery, then it's primarily about port mapping, and while I agree that many users who are paying enough attention to set their IP manually will also map their ports manually, I'm not sure we should make that assumption.
On October 9, 2015 2:45:19 PM PDT, Gregory Maxwell notifications@github.com wrote:
I agree that it's not needed if it defaults to off, but I'm curious as to why @bluematt thinks discovery isn't sufficiently related!
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #6792 (comment)
while I agree that many users who are paying enough attention to set their IP manually will also map their ports manually, I'm not sure we should make that assumption. @gmaxwell mentions that in the OP. This changes the default it does not force the setting. So in that (arguably rare) case people can do
-upnp=1to override the default.