On 03/09/2013 08:42 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 07:41:13PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote > >> The trouble with NAT is that it destroys peer-to-peer protocols. The >> first was FTP in Active mode. > > In its day, it was OK. Nowadays, we use passive mode. What's the > problem? >
It also doesn't work under NAT, it's just broken in the other direction. >> SIP has been heavily damaged as well. Anyone who's used IRC is >> familiar with the problems NAT introduces to DCC. > > Every ADSL router-modem I've run into recently has port-forwarding. > >> Anyone who's ever played video games online,... > > A *CLIENT* that can't operate from behind NAT is totally brain-dead. > But you must have one non-NATed "server" for anything to work. I assume that's what was meant by "it destroys peer-to-peer protocols." You have to draw an arbitrary distinction between machines that work together, "servers," and ones that don't, "clients." The problem will become more and more apparent as ipv4 space dries up and everyone becomes a client. Although ISPs will be more than happy to sell you a useful connection, for a premium. Un-NATed addresses are like, type-O blood. Imagine how much better off we'd be if we could get everyone to switch their blood to type-O. Might be less painful than the ipv6 transition, too =) >> or who's tried hosting a Teamspeak or Ventrillo server, has had NAT >> get in their way as well. > > Port-forwarding. > Port forwarding can work, but only for one host when the ports are standardized. You can't forward e.g. port 443 to two hosts, so only one host behind the NAT can be accessible on 443. If you're using your NAT as a firewall for one box, then who cares. But you can't put more than one machine behind it and have everything still work.
