On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Scott Helms <[email protected]> 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
