skype

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Christian de Larrinaga <cdel () firsthand net>
Date: June 23, 2006 5:05:27 AM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>, Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com
Subject: Re: [IP] Digest 1.1054 for ip

Skype uses the "accidental" topology of the network as the platform  
for its addressing. How else does it do it? But because Skype assumes  
its users are likely not to have static IP addresses Skype has a way   
to route to these users.  It's P2P meshing is not a consequence of  
this but a necessary party to making this possible.

There is also a potential cost to this as anybody who uses Skype  
through a firewall knows as you open up undefined ports to unknown  
hosts.

It would be so much easier to establish application level addressing  
schema's including for Skype type services over an end to end  
underlying addressing architecture. Being able to program one's way  
out of trouble is clever but it is intelligent not to have to.


Christian de Larrinaga

Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com>wrote.
On 23 Jun 2006, at 01:28, ip () v2 listbox com wrote:

> You don’t want static IP addresses – that’s like putting a concrete
> base on your cordless phone. Look at Skype as an example – it creates
> its own stable addresses without tying them to the accidental
> topology of the network. You get P2P meshing as an accidental  
> byproduct.
> Where I do agree is that local traffic tends to be local and peering
> is a business relic not a technology.



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/