On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
"hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was). I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?"
Sure it is, but the point is if it's easier to deliver then the price will go down and more people will choose to use it. That's kind of my point.
I don't know that price is the problem with carbonite, or any backup solution. I think most folk don't see why they OUGHT to backup their pictures/etc... until they needed to get them from a backup :(
Carbonite (and others) have built a decent business, but imagine if their costs were cut by ~15% because they didn't have to deal with NAT transversal they could offer more services for the same amount of money or offer the
I doubt it's 15%, if it is... wow they seem to be doing it wrong.
same service for less. Either would result in more people using that kind of service.
this is a point problem (backup for carbonite), there are lots of things that work 'just fine' with NAT (practically everything... it would seem) I'm not sure digging more into why carbonite/etc are 'hard' (because they aren't, because they are working...) is helpful.
Imagine what might be possible if direct communication would work without port forwarding rules inside your neighborhood.
I can imagine that, I have that silly thing that my dsl modem does (zeroconf or whatever crazy sauce my windows ME desktop does to tell the 'router' to open a port so johnny down the street can chat me). also I have ipv6, so i have open access directly to my internal network. (so do 70+% of the rest of the comcast user base... and TWC and ...)
"no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the 'fastest player' to be the server for group play..."
That's not WoW, it might be Diablo III or StarCraft (both Blizzard products)
you'll note in my first message about this (not the morse code one) I said I don't play games so call it angband (http://rephial.org/)
"my son has a minecraft server as well behind nat, his pals all over play on it just fine. It happens to have v6, but because the minecraft people are apparently stuck in 1972 only v4 is a configurable transport option, and the clients won't make AAAA queries so my AAAA is a wasted dns few bytes.
Frankly folk that want to keep stomping up and down about NAT being a problem are delusional. Sure direct access is nice, it simple and whatnot, but ... really... stuff just works behind NAT as well."
It doesn't "just work" there is a real cost and complexity even if you're using UPNP or you're comfortable doing the port forwarding manually to get around it to a certain extent. Session border controllers cost tens of thousands of dollars to handle SIP sessions behind NAT.
folk could deploy v6 though, eh? it's not costing THAT much I guess if they can't get off their duffs and deploy v6 on the consumer networks that don't already have v6 deployed. You can't be all: "NAT IS HARD!!! AND EXPENSIVE!!!" and not deploy v6. Frankly, SBCs exist for a whole host of reasons unrelated to NAT, so that's a fine red herring you've also brought up. -chris