RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...

[Brian Whalen <bri () sonicboom org>]

Many streaming/multimedia apps try port 80 http if their typical range is
not open..



Brian "Sonic" Whalen
Success = Preparation + Opportunity


On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Mike Batchelor wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> > Eric Hall <ehall () ehsco com> has expressed the position succinctly:
> >
> > > The fact is that I can write an Internet-compliant application in
> > > about two minutes that will break every NAT ever sold, simply because
> > > they don't have a proxy for the protocol. NATs violate fundamental
> > > Internet principles.
> >
> > Many stupid things can be done in about two minutes.  This particular
> > fundamentalist tenet has been at odds with reality since the first
> > firewall was installed, and will only become more so.
> >
> > Jim Shankland
>
> Oh yes, the firewall.  That convenient device that network software
> developers can assume will always pass port 80 and 443 traffic.  So
> everything uses port 80 and 443 in the future Internet, and we're all the
> better for it.
>
> Uh-huh.
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBO5kHyEksS4VV8BvHEQJI6wCgm6JoiS11I5g4NkrxnDaZU4nlTAkAoMMu
> ll66gu/3u8oaOx+0RGc7bvF+
> =+9g3
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----