Re: Poll: Both ends behind NAT...

On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 11:47:38PM -0800, Ed Kapitein wrote:
> 
> I am happy to see speakfreely working with the nat
> traversal code.
> There is one "flaw"" in this setup however.
> Asume two people in a internet cafe to start
> speakfreely.

Given how thin the user base, how probable is
that would happen to two random strangers?

> Now the NAT router *MUST* change the port of one of the
> inside hosts in order to deliver the return packets to
> the corect inside host.

NAT is intrinsically broken, and it takes some fancy
stepdancing from the app/supportive environment side
to route around that braindamage.

IPv6 will make that better, on the long run wireless
will use ad hoc geographic routing (a non-IP protocol)
anyway.

> (now i come to think of it, if two people start SF
> simultaniously, one might end up with 2 incomming
> streams !)

You have to separate the machines by the port, I guess.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/wHOddbAkQ4sp9r4RAgnMAJwO40DaT5oafsluY9PkLUOvFx9o2gCeM9vH
PM4cGhfunYfIf+5EjehujD0=
=Ybzg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----