[Ietf-behave] Fwd: [p2p-hackers] Official IETF behavior recommendations for NATrelevant to P2P

[codewarrior at cuseeme.de]

On Jun 10, 2005, at 9:27 AM, walter harms wrote:
> educate the masses.

walter great saying ,

as far as i researched on my project work
, conferencing over udp seems to be  feasible.
and you could use something like this

<snip>....
It has an interesting approach to UDP NAT Hole-punching that doesn't use
a _public_ STUN-like server per say.....
..Basically, the approach trades off a public STUN server in exchange  
for
a port-scan and full-cone support.
(Rodi packets can be made to look like DNS, RTP etc).
The default transport protocol of choice is UDP. :-/
http://larytet.sourceforge.net/btRat.shtml
<snip>


i am correct?
just a bit  packet loss right?

thank you

marc

>
>>> So, to make a long story short, NAT traversal is a hard problem,  
>>> and it's
>>> made especially hard by address-restricted NATs. If I could count on
>>> full-cone NAT behavior, my life as a programmer would be easier
>> Consider that NAT vendors have blatantly said that they _refuse_ to
>> implement full cone; mainly because of the importance of security in
>> Internet devices and market forces. IMHO, unless the draft absolutely
>> forbids non-full cone behavior, vendors that value security (as a
>> principle or as marketing hype) will continue to developing non-full
>> cone NATs.