[mnet-devel] desiderata and open issues in ent

[Zooko]

 icepick wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 09:40:59AM -0400, Zooko wrote:
> > 2.  It should handle the reality that a large fraction (around half) of the 
> > nodes are behind NAT or firewalls and can't accept incoming connections.  If 
> > two nodes are both restricted like that then they cannot be peers of one 
> > another in the ent graph.
> 
> Surveying LinkSys home gateway products this morning I see that all of them
> support UPnP.  I suspect that most new home networks are being setup with
> hardward like this that supports UPnP, so maybe we'll get lucky and that 50%
> number will go down.

I'm skeptical.  I think that in a lot of places that NAT is installed it is 
serving a dual role: to multiplex IP addresses and to discourage consumers 
from running servers.  I suspect that if the former need is obviated for some 
reason, that firewalls (or UPnP configurations) will then be installed to 
enforce the latter need.

Networking researchers and Internet hackers like to talk about "solving the 
NAT problem", but I suspect that the people who actually make the decisions 
consider it to be a feature and not a problem.

Here's an interesting rant that I skimmed recently that touches on this:

<a href="http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/"> 
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/
</a>

Regards,

Zooko



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
mnet-devel mailing list
mnet-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mnet-devel