19 aug 2008 kl. 23.50 skrev Dirk Meyer:
Jonathan Dickinson wrote:
Requiring serverless messaging is a deceiving lure.
What if the client is behind a symmetric NAT? Or some NAT that
simply doesn't working with STUN (or ICE/SIP/whatever)? They can't
open a encrypted session?
No, in that case they need the "help" of a server. IMHO the real use
case for serverless messaging is in the LAN. Back to my application
control using XMPP: I want to access my set-top box from other devices
in my LAN even if my DSL link is down.
We can't design solutions based on an assumption that "people will not
use this, because it's not the use case I'm thinking of." E2E sessions
will be used across the Internet and will need help with NAT traversal.
That has to be part of the design spec.
/O
