[136606] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Huff)
Thu Feb 3 16:44:19 2011
From: Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com>
To: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:41:12 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20110203205956.GK24798@hezmatt.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
SMTP is definitely not a p2p protocol in most corporate environments. In ou=
rs, all email (even ones that you would think should be host2host) go to a =
central "smarthost" that processes the mail, and archive it for compliance.=
All internal to external and external to internal email is tightly control=
led and only goes through a very specific route.
Again, big difference between a univerisity or ISP environment and a corpor=
ate one.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Palmer [mailto:mpalmer@hezmatt.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 4:00 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: quietly....
>=20
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 03:20:25PM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 03, 2011 02:28:32 pm Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrot=
e:
> > > The only reason FTP works through a NAT is because the NAT has alread=
y
> > > been hacked up to further mangle the data stream to make up for the
> > > mangling it does.
> >
> > FTP is a in essence a peer-to-peer protocol, as both ends initiate TCP
> > streams. I know that's nitpicking, but it is true.
>=20
> So is SMTP, by the same token. Aptly demonstrating why the term "P2P" is=
so
> mind-alteringly stupid.
>=20
> - Matt
