Re: peer to peer messaging
- From: "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 17:56:44 +0100
Tim Ward wrote:
> > Start with 2 machines on the same subnet. Get your services working and
> > then work your way out to dealing with NAT issues.
>
> Coo! That's clever! Then when you find that your system architecture
> cannot be extended to work across NAT boxes you just go to your boss
> and/or client and tell them that you've wasted [...]
Since NAT is supposed to be transparent to both ends of the network connection,
it isn't obvious to me what the potential showstoppers might be ?
(Yes I do know that it's possible to [mis?-]design protocols so that they
require active cooperation from the NAT, but does anyone actually design such
protocols these days ?)
-- chirs
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: peer to peer messaging
- From: Tim Ward
- Re: peer to peer messaging
- From: Bond
- Re: peer to peer messaging
- References:
- peer to peer messaging
- From: Bond
- Re: peer to peer messaging
- From: Thomas Weidenfeller
- Re: peer to peer messaging
- From: Bond
- Re: peer to peer messaging
- From: Guy Noir
- Re: peer to peer messaging
- From: Bond
- Re: peer to peer messaging
- From: Guy Noir
- Re: peer to peer messaging
- From: Tim Ward
- peer to peer messaging
- Prev by Date: handling commonality in similar XSD schemas
- Next by Date: Re: Baffling class not found problem
- Previous by thread: Re: peer to peer messaging
- Next by thread: Re: peer to peer messaging
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|