Adam Megacz wrote:
My personal experience is that most places blocking UDP are also
blocking TCP and forcing users to use an HTTP proxy for all internet
access.
Really?
I'm actually interested in knowing about the prevalence of
anything that falls in-between (NATted TCP but no UDP). I know it's
possible, of course; are there any network devices that do this by
default, or is it usually the case that networks configured this way
are setup this way deliberately?
Firewalls that permit only specific UDP traffic, eg, domain and ntp,
would seem very common.
I know it sounds like a hideous idea, but if AFS-over-TCP ever
happens, I think tunnelling it inside HTTP would be a pretty useful
hack.
What?
Given the way that most NATs work, it's actually possible to do
something called "unreliable TCP". I've never seen this mentioned
before, but I can't be the first person to think of it. The idea is
that you "speak TCP" but always ACK all packets periodically,
regardless of whether or not you got them -- the NAT can't tell the
difference. So you get UDP-type performance with TCP-type
compatability. With many NATs you wouldn't even need to bother with
the ACKs at all.
- a
Google finds a lot of references to "unreliable TCP--"unreliable. TCP"
and "unreliable, TCP" seem especially frequent.
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Matt
--
Matt Benjamin
The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
http://linuxbox.com
tel. 734-761-4689
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
