Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com>]

"hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was).
I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice
server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?"

Sure it is, but the point is if it's easier to deliver then the price will
go down and more people will choose to use it.  That's kind of my point.
Carbonite (and others) have built a decent business, but imagine if their
costs were cut by ~15% because they didn't have to deal with NAT
transversal they could offer more services for the same amount of money or
offer the same service for less.  Either would result in more people using
that kind of service.

Imagine what *might *be possible if direct communication would work without
port forwarding rules inside your neighborhood.

"no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the
'fastest player' to be the server for group play..."

That's not WoW, it might be Diablo III or StarCraft (both Blizzard products)

"my son has a minecraft server as well behind nat, his pals all over
play on it just fine. It happens to have v6, but because the minecraft
people are apparently stuck in 1972 only v4 is a configurable
transport option, and the clients won't make AAAA queries so my AAAA
is a wasted dns few bytes.

Frankly folk that want to keep stomping up and down about NAT being a
problem are delusional. Sure direct access is nice, it simple and
whatnot, but ... really... stuff just works behind NAT as well."

It doesn't "just work" there is a real cost and complexity even if you're
using UPNP or you're comfortable doing the port forwarding manually to get
around it to a certain extent.  Session border controllers cost tens of
thousands of dollars to handle SIP sessions behind NAT.



Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com
> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com> wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > "because gameservers, backups, etc don't work just fine today in the
> > 'world of nat' ??? I'm fairly certain that I can do backups to
> > carbonite/etc with my nat working just fun, right? I'm also fairly
> > certain that WoW (or whatever, hell I don't play games, so I'll just
> > say: "Angband") etc that turn the fastest user in the group into a
> > server also work just fine..."
> >
> > Talk to someone at Carbonite and ask them how much effort they have to
> exert
>
> hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was).
> I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice
> server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?
>
> > to make that work.  Also, keep in mind that your game example is not
> someone
> > running a game server as a residential subscriber, it's a residential
> > subscriber accessing a server hosted on a dedicated network.
>
> no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the
> 'fastest player' to be the server for group play...
>
> my son has a minecraft server as well behind nat, his pals all over
> play on it just fine. It happens to have v6, but because the minecraft
> people are apparently stuck in 1972 only v4 is a configurable
> transport option, and the clients won't make AAAA queries so my AAAA
> is a wasted dns few bytes.
>
> Frankly folk that want to keep stomping up and down about NAT being a
> problem are delusional. Sure direct access is nice, it simple and
> whatnot, but ... really... stuff just works behind NAT as well.
>
> -chris