[e2e] Internet Draft and survey on P2P in the presence of NAT

[David P. Reed]

This is all great work, but I have to say that if we had used true subnet 
routers instead of NAT we'd be way better off.

How many lines of code will be needed to bypass NATs in SIP implementations 
5 years from now?   And how many new firewall and NAT systems will be 
invented that continue to screw up perfectly sensible end-to-end applications?

This wouldn't even be a respectable research topic if ...

At 10:20 PM 4/8/2003 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>There's been a lot more recent work on NAT traversal in the SIP working 
>group and surroundings. See, for example, the recent ICE draft by J. 
>Rosenberg that combines a number of NAT traversal techniques.
>
>Bryan Ford wrote:
>
>>Hi end2enders,
>>I have been working on collecting and consolidating information about 
>>making peer-to-peer applications work seamlessly with NAT (you know, that 
>>evil anti-end2end technology we all love to hate :)), and have just 
>>released the first version of an Internet Draft on which I would be 
>>grateful to hear your comments:
>>         http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/~baford/nat/draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt
>>In addition, to get a better sense of the compatibility of these 
>>techniques with widely deployed NATs, I wrote a short NAT tester program 
>>that basically works like a simple STUN (rfc3489) client and outputs 
>>relevant stats, and a friend set up an on-line database to collect 
>>results.  If you are behind or have access to a NAT that isn't already 
>>listed in the database, we'd greatly appreciate if you could run the 
>>client and enter the results you get.  The program (source, Linux binary, 
>>FreeBSD binary) and database are at:
>>         http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/~baford/nat/
>>Thanks for your time!
>>Bryan
>