Keith Moore wrote:
Please make the business case for my company's allowing your P2P app to
establish inbound connections without NAT? Without those specifics your
assertions have no identifiable logic.
I don't give a damn about your company or its network. They are irrelevant
to this discussion. It's your choice whether you want to run any particular
app or not.
This paragraph appears to be self-contradictory. How can you not care
what someone runs on their network on the one hand, and care whether they
use stateful NAT on the other?
If you think there's something inherently wrong with P2P apps, you're
deluded. But hey, it's your business.
I doubt anyone has a bias against generic P2P. That's not the issue.
What's wrong is remote apps that expect to 1) initiate inbound
connections and 2) demand that they be allowed to initiate those inbound
connections to hosts unprotected by statefulness and to topologies
unabstracted by NAT.
Roger Marquis
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
