Re: Stupid UDP NAT argument

2007-07-13 Thread Dan Jenkins
brk wrote: On Jul 13, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Dan Jenkins wrote: Travis Roy wrote: Don't be a troll. ;-) Uhh, have you ever met Ben in person? (sorry, I couldn't help it So... Come to the BBQ. Bring Food. Feed the Troll. :-D Just for clarification, do you mean feed as in beer, or feed as

Re: Stupid UDP NAT argument

2007-07-13 Thread Travis Roy
On Jul 13, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Dan Jenkins wrote: Travis Roy wrote: Don't be a troll. ;-) Uhh, have you ever met Ben in person? (sorry, I couldn't help it So... Come to the BBQ. Bring Food. Feed the Troll. :-D I've seen Ben eat, no thanks. (sorry, I neither could I help it. And

Re: Stupid UDP NAT argument

2007-07-13 Thread brk
On Jul 13, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Dan Jenkins wrote: Travis Roy wrote: Don't be a troll. ;-) Uhh, have you ever met Ben in person? (sorry, I couldn't help it So... Come to the BBQ. Bring Food. Feed the Troll. :-D Just for clarification, do you mean feed as in beer, or feed as in

Re: Stupid UDP NAT argument

2007-07-13 Thread Dan Jenkins
Travis Roy wrote: Don't be a troll. ;-) Uhh, have you ever met Ben in person? (sorry, I couldn't help it So... Come to the BBQ. Bring Food. Feed the Troll. :-D (sorry, I neither could I help it. And I haven't even physically met him yet. Apologies to Ben, but the setup seemed too good to

Re: Stupid UDP NAT argument (was: OpenVPN TCP vs UDP)

2007-07-13 Thread Travis Roy
Don't be a troll. ;-) Uhh, have you ever met Ben in person? (sorry, I couldn't help it) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/

Re: Stupid UDP NAT argument

2007-07-13 Thread Bill McGonigle
On Jul 13, 2007, at 09:17, Dan Jenkins wrote: but I was not thinking beer, which might well disinhibit the latter instead. Oh, c'mon, now, we don't need to get Ben drunk to find out how much Debian sucks. That's fair game from him straight-sober! Anybody who thinks otherwise ought to

Re: Stupid UDP NAT argument

2007-07-13 Thread TARogue
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, brk wrote: On Jul 13, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Dan Jenkins wrote: Travis Roy wrote: Don't be a troll. ;-) Uhh, have you ever met Ben in person? (sorry, I couldn't help it So... Come to the BBQ. Bring Food. Feed the Troll. :-D Just for clarification,

Stupid UDP NAT argument (was: OpenVPN TCP vs UDP)

2007-07-12 Thread Ben Scott
On 7/12/07, Thomas Charron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And there is no reliably standard way to provide full UDP nat traversal, which is why companies like Skype roll their own solution. VoIP uses dynamic port numbers for connections, which is why you need stateful, application-layer packet

Re: Stupid UDP NAT argument (was: OpenVPN TCP vs UDP)

2007-07-12 Thread VirginSnow
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:10:15 -0400 From: Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Stupid UDP NAT argument (was: OpenVPN TCP vs UDP) Okay, this is third (at least) time that you've done this... So I'm going to respectfully suggest that you reconsider the arrogance with which you choose your