Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
From: Brian Whalen <bri () sonicboom org>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 12:03:13 -0700 (PDT)


Many streaming/multimedia apps try port 80 http if their typical range is
not open..



Brian "Sonic" Whalen
Success = Preparation + Opportunity


On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Mike Batchelor wrote:


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Eric Hall <ehall () ehsco com> has expressed the position succinctly:

The fact is that I can write an Internet-compliant application in
about two minutes that will break every NAT ever sold, simply because
they don't have a proxy for the protocol. NATs violate fundamental
Internet principles.

Many stupid things can be done in about two minutes.  This particular
fundamentalist tenet has been at odds with reality since the first
firewall was installed, and will only become more so.

Jim Shankland

Oh yes, the firewall.  That convenient device that network software
developers can assume will always pass port 80 and 443 traffic.  So
everything uses port 80 and 443 in the future Internet, and we're all the
better for it.

Uh-huh.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBO5kHyEksS4VV8BvHEQJI6wCgm6JoiS11I5g4NkrxnDaZU4nlTAkAoMMu
ll66gu/3u8oaOx+0RGc7bvF+
=+9g3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]