Both approaches are valid. However DDNS is not full solution. It solves only one part of the problem, that is, matching a peer with a temporary IP address. You would still have to solve at least NAT traversal issues (see TURN and STUN solutions) and locations of peers.
There is also another issue with DNS, propagation of information is slow. When P2P exploded around Y2K, many refused to use DNS because of performance. They wanted something faster. Considering that P2P networks can be made of millions of devices changing of IP address at anytime, this would be unbearable for DNS.
On the good side, DDNS is helpful if you want to set-up a couple of stable SUPER-peers. They can be used to facilitate the organization of your P2P network.
发布评论
评论（1）
两种方法都是有效的。然而 DDNS 并不是完整的解决方案。它只解决了问题的一部分，即将对等点与临时 IP 地址进行匹配。您仍然必须至少解决 NAT 穿越问题（请参阅 TURN 和 STUN 解决方案）和对等方的位置。
DNS还有另一个问题，信息传播速度慢。当 P2P 在 2000 年爆发时，许多人因为性能问题而拒绝使用 DNS。他们想要更快的东西。考虑到 P2P 网络可能由数百万台随时更改 IP 地址的设备组成，这对于 DNS 来说是难以忍受的。
从好的方面来说，如果您想建立几个稳定的超级对等点，DDNS 会很有帮助。它们可用于促进 P2P 网络的组织。
Both approaches are valid. However DDNS is not full solution. It solves only one part of the problem, that is, matching a peer with a temporary IP address. You would still have to solve at least NAT traversal issues (see TURN and STUN solutions) and locations of peers.
There is also another issue with DNS, propagation of information is slow. When P2P exploded around Y2K, many refused to use DNS because of performance. They wanted something faster. Considering that P2P networks can be made of millions of devices changing of IP address at anytime, this would be unbearable for DNS.
On the good side, DDNS is helpful if you want to set-up a couple of stable SUPER-peers. They can be used to facilitate the organization of your P2P network.