So we need to extend the UPNP protocol so that when the local NAT box
receives a request to open up an external port, it relays the request
to the carrier NAT.
Or we could do what we did last time and pretend that nobody will
deploy carrier grade NAT if we don't specify a way that it can work
without pain.
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen
<arnt(_at_)gulbrandsen(_dot_)priv(_dot_)no> wrote:
On 05/30/2010 04:44 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
BitTorrent is popular, yes. People at home *are* behind NAT boxes, with
all the usual pain that implies *. It's just that BitTorrent, being a
straightforward TCP protocol with no embedded payload addresses **, can
operate behind NATs, and those NATs can be configured either manually or
automatically by users or their client software ***. If the NAT should move
to the ISP, it seems possible that this is no longer true.
Not quite.
1. Bittorrent clients connect to each other via TCP. Each connection is
incoming at one end. Torrent clients mostly use UPNP to accept incoming
connections.
2. UPNP is an ethernet-level protocol (it uses UDP/IP broadcasts), so it
works only if the USER is on the public internet. Hence, NAT within the
user's network is now very different from NAT within the ISP's network.
That's why I said the wide popularity of bittorrent shows that USERS are on
the public internet.
Arnt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf