![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
> If a compelling application comes along that is NAT-hostile, that > will be interesting, but I can't imagine it's in anyone's interest > to provoke such a conflict when there are well-known NAT-friendly > ways of replacing embedded IP addresses in most higher-level protocols > that use them... Well, NAPSTER comes pretty close. Two peers can exchange files if at least one of them can act as a server, i.e. is not blocked by a NAT. If both are behind NAT, they can't. The point being, NAT are only transparent if the host behind a NAT acts as a "client", and initiates the TCP connection. Peer-to-peer applications assume that every host can be a server. -- Christian Huitema
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.