There are multiple facets needed to answer your question; let me try to catch as many as I can. First let me try to break apart what you're asking about to see if I can capture it correctly. You're mentioning multicast and firewalls, and concerned about users who need to work around issues related to them. Additionally the use of 'Bridge' in your subject line is not a like we've ever used the word before, it's really a proxy, right?
If these assumptions are correct, I can answer your questions pretty easily. --Ivan > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Randy Groves > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 8:25 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [AG-TECH] 'Bridge' for venue services, etc.? > > I'm looking into the future here, and wondering how many of > the new services that might be coming down the pike are going > to fit into the > 8000,2,4,6 port scheme of the Venue Server/Client as it is > presently designed. I know that on the top end of all this, > the fact that some of the participants are > multicast-challenged will mean that they just lose out on > some of the newest features. If the participants are > multicast-challenged and firewall-challenged (behind a > restrictive firewall, with a long process to go through > before changes can be made, long security justifications for > just opening up any port in the first place, etc.), I see > them potentially falling further and further behind. > > What is the priority, when design decisions are made, as to > what emphasis is placed on making sure that these situations > are dealt with? > > Is there a possibility of a venue service proxy in the future? > > -randy > > >
