[p2p-hackers] Official IETF behavior recommendations for NATrelevant to P2P

[Travis Kalanick]

Couldn't have said it better myself. . .

The NAT situation is something we can all build around today, and it will
only get easier to deal with over time by the forces already in play.

Travis


-----Original Message-----
From: p2p-hackers-bounces at zgp.org [mailto:p2p-hackers-bounces at zgp.org] On
Behalf Of Justin Cormack
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 4:00 PM
To: Peer-to-peer development.
Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] Official IETF behavior recommendations for
NATrelevant to P2P


On 18 May 2005, at 19:59, Bryan Ford wrote:

> Dear p2p-hackers,
>
> A discussion is currently taking place on the IETF BEHAVE working  
> group
> mailing list (see http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/behave- 
> charter.html)


(snip)

How current is this? These are the people who loooked at STUn and  
decided it wasnt that much use, and are due to wind up next January.

(not on the list but just asking)

Not sure what the issue is with TCP - surely it just doesnt work, you  
cant get the sequence numbers to work.

For UDP, well its easy to spoof anyway, The main problem with not  
using full cone is that it restricts the number of connections that  
you can NAT (and given the lack of timeouts on UDP this does impact  
many applications). Asking for non full cone to be default is thus a  
bit broken. But all the makers of dumb boxes are doing it anyway.  
Since when have NAT vendors cared about the IETF? Isnt it only Linux/ 
BSD based boxes that do full cone anyway?

Given that l33t hackers are already giving owned machines ipv6  
addresses anyway I am not ure it is an issue...

j

_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
p2p-hackers at zgp.org
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
_______________________________________________
Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences