On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 08:28:43PM +0200, Remko Troncon wrote: > > On 27 Aug 2005, at 19:58, Rory wrote: > > >You could run proxies inside firewalls that might be knowledgeable > >about HTTP tunneling. > > You always look at this from the viewpoint of a network > administrator. If you have no control over the network you are in > (i.e. you are not an admin), and the only thing you can do is make a > tunnel to the outside world, then you need to be able to override the > host detected by your protocol. This is why, if you do not allow this > in a client, you will never be able to use that client on the network > you are working in. >
You're right, I do always look at this from a network administrator viewpoint or at least I try to. What I'm getting at here is division of labour. I don't think that an XMPP client should be expected to know how to use HTTP tunneling to get through a firewall to speak to an XMPP server listening on a particular IP on the other side. I don't think it should be the responsibility of every XMPP client/library to provide this functionality. However, I do believe there is a case to be made for saying the client should be able to talk to an XMPP proxy that will do the tunneling for them. There is nothing to stop a user from running a XMPP proxy that knows how to tunnel via HTTP on their own box on a port above 1024 (and perhaps below on windows - I don't know). It's simply the UNIX philosophy - keep tools small, cohesive and with a capability of using one another. Rory _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
