On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 10:27 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote: > And thanks to NAT-hatred in the standards process, most of those > require finagling firewall forwarding fritters..er... rules Well, to be fair, *NAT* is an obstacle, in the real meaning of the word. It does make it difficult to do anything that must accept an incoming connection. The only real way to get around that is for your client to make use of a server, so that means true peer-to-peer is out of the question, some external (or on the border) management is required. NAT, *itself*, is the major problem. And on the other hand, various protocols do require far too many ports, and sometimes unplannable port numbers, open in various directions. So, never mind NAT, they're a networking nightmare in themselves. Making your webserver accessible, for instance, is rather easy; you just open port 80. If other clients would stop being NAT *stupid*, and be more simple in design, this would be less of an issue. We're stuck with NAT, for the long term, so clients and protocols would be better designed not to be so damn over-complicated. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
