[41426] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Whalen)
Sun Sep 9 15:04:58 2001
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 12:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Whalen <bri@sonicboom.org>
To: Mike Batchelor <mikebat@tmcs.net>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <LLEOLJEDPHOFANPCPKOMGEHECEAA.mikebat@tmcs.net>
Message-ID: <20010909120241.P6820-100000@cx175057-a.ocnsd1.sdca.home.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Many streaming/multimedia apps try port 80 http if their typical range is
not open..
Brian "Sonic" Whalen
Success = Preparation + Opportunity
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Mike Batchelor wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> > Eric Hall <ehall@ehsco.com> has expressed the position succinctly:
> >
> > > The fact is that I can write an Internet-compliant application in
> > > about two minutes that will break every NAT ever sold, simply because
> > > they don't have a proxy for the protocol. NATs violate fundamental
> > > Internet principles.
> >
> > Many stupid things can be done in about two minutes. This particular
> > fundamentalist tenet has been at odds with reality since the first
> > firewall was installed, and will only become more so.
> >
> > Jim Shankland
>
> Oh yes, the firewall. That convenient device that network software
> developers can assume will always pass port 80 and 443 traffic. So
> everything uses port 80 and 443 in the future Internet, and we're all the
> better for it.
>
> Uh-huh.
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBO5kHyEksS4VV8BvHEQJI6wCgm6JoiS11I5g4NkrxnDaZU4nlTAkAoMMu
> ll66gu/3u8oaOx+0RGc7bvF+
> =+9g3
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
