Re: quietly....

[Blake Dunlap <ikiris () gmail com>]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:38, <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:14:00 EST, david raistrick said:
>
> > Er.  That's not news.  That's been the state of the art for what, 15+
> > years or so now?   SIP (because it's peer to peer) and P2P are really the
> > only things that actually give a damn about it.
>
> "It's client/server unless it's peer-to-peer" is almost a tautology, you
> know...


The argument is specious anyway, as many existing protocols that should by
all rights be peer to peer, are forced to use HTTP to a server that someone
has to pay for (and it isn't the guy running NAT) due to the brokenness of
the internet.

Those 65k ports were not meant solely for client random connects to port 80.
Why an instant message client even would use the far over bloated HTTP to
some 3rd party that shouldn't be privy to the packets anyway for the purpose
is an example of what we've been reduced to.

Trying to ask for examples of things that are broken by NAT or have not been
implemented due to it, after it has been the standard for many years, and
then using arguments that they work over NAT to counter it, ignoring the
fact that someone had to invest a lot of money and time (again, not the NAT
users) in being able to do that, is amazing to me. It's like asking for
people that have died hungry to come speak out against hunger, and claiming
that clearly it isn't a problem, when they don't show up.

-Blake