[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: why market picked up NATs [Re: Writeups on why RFC1918 is bad?]



Michel Py wrote:
> Note that p2p is not that unfriendly as of now. I just had a look at one
> of the pieces of p2p I use at home; there are some 230k users on the
                   ^^^
> server I connect to, 
  ^^^^^^
And the inconsistency with that statement is ???

> plus a load of other ones with 100k+ users. Some of
> the files have 500+ simultaneous sources. These guys are not all network
> geeks, and a fair number have broadband and are behind NATs or behind
> some kind of a firewall (I ran a few probes). It means that the point
> where Joe-six-pack that bought a $50 NAT box is able to type
> "http://192.168.1.1";, figure out that the password is "admin" and use
> the web interface to open the one port that the p2p app needs open has
> been reached. Out of the million something users I see right now on
> _one_ p2p app, I'd be damned if there are not 100k Joes and Janes that
> don't understand squat about networks but that spent the time to read
> what they had to do in order to get free pr0n, warez or free mp3s. If it
> has reached that kind of mass acceptance, it must be easy enough.
> 
> Michel.
> 
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------