[p2p-hackers] Work on NAT-friendly DHTs?

[Saikat Guha]

On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 01:42 +0100, Luca Piccarreta wrote:
> The role of the NAT should just be routing [...]
> The role of a firewall is filtering unsolicited packets.
> Model #3 is, to my eyes, NAT+firewall.

Agreed; nevertheless NATs are necessary to extend the address space (for
now), and firewalls are necessary (for security). The logical separation
of "pure-NAT" and "pure-firewall" is moot; both are required
middle-boxes and vendors will combine them into one convenient product.
If they don't, you'll end up with two separate middle-boxes with the
same combined effect anyway.

> that file sharing servers were hosted by the provider
> itself! If they made it possible to make P2P with outside the network,
> their outbound pipes would be saturated immediately)

File-sharing content it highly cacheable (not zipf, not dynamic, etc).
There are entire business models behind the idea where your ISP can
steer P2P to internal hosts when possible, and allow outbound
connections only on the first fetch of an object
(http://www.cachelogic.com/).

cheers,
-- 
Saikat
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://zgp.org/pipermail/p2p-hackers/attachments/20060127/07ecc460/attachment.pgp