Re: [Bulk] Re: [gentoo-user] /etc/hosts include file?

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 03/09/2013 08:42 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 07:41:13PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote
>
>> The trouble with NAT is that it destroys peer-to-peer protocols. The
>> first was FTP in Active mode.
>
>   In its day, it was OK.  Nowadays, we use passive mode.  What's the
> problem?
>

It also doesn't work under NAT, it's just broken in the other direction.


>> SIP has been heavily damaged as well.  Anyone who's used IRC is
>> familiar with the problems NAT introduces to DCC.
>
>   Every ADSL router-modem I've run into recently has port-forwarding.
>
>> Anyone who's ever played video games online,...
>
>   A *CLIENT* that can't operate from behind NAT is totally brain-dead.
>

But you must have one non-NATed "server" for anything to work. I assume
that's what was meant by "it destroys peer-to-peer protocols." You have
to draw an arbitrary distinction between machines that work together,
"servers," and ones that don't, "clients."

The problem will become more and more apparent as ipv4 space dries up
and everyone becomes a client. Although ISPs will be more than happy to
sell you a useful connection, for a premium.

Un-NATed addresses are like, type-O blood. Imagine how much better off
we'd be if we could get everyone to switch their blood to type-O. Might
be less painful than the ipv6 transition, too =)


>> or who's tried hosting a Teamspeak or Ventrillo server, has had NAT
>> get in their way as well.
>
>   Port-forwarding.
>

Port forwarding can work, but only for one host when the ports are
standardized. You can't forward e.g. port 443 to two hosts, so only one
host behind the NAT can be accessible on 443.

If you're using your NAT as a firewall for one box, then who cares. But
you can't put more than one machine behind it and have everything still
work.