[standards-jig] Pondering DTCP

Tom tlburnett at ucdavis.edu
Fri Dec 13 10:43:59 UTC 2002

> Justin Karneges wrote:
> >As for arbitrary TCP tunneling, that could be used for any kind of server 
> >application that may want take advantage of DTCP's reverse connections.
> >you are behind NAT, but wish to serve http?  or mp3 streaming?  All is 
> >possible.
> >  
> >
> I don't understand how you want to server http behind a firewall with 
> DTCP. If you have DTCP I can't see how this would help a web browser to 
> connect to a http server behind your nat router.
> And with mp3 streaming it's neither anything we need DTCP for. If you 
> want to stream a MP3 file over a tcp connection (DTCP is one) you can 
> use http. If you really want cool MP3 streaming use RTP (real time 
> transfer protocol). This protocol prevents you from problems with 
> hanging connections due to lost packets and even enables multicast (a 
> very cool thing - people broadcasting internet radio over their home 
> internet account - and Jabber as a way to connect to these stations) - 
> you can even extend the possibilities of MP3 streaming by adding RTSP to 
> RTP, this enables you to pause the stream, fast forward, ...
> Tot kijk
>     Matthias

Sure, and let's say I have access to none of those things.  No server to
run, no portforwarding capability, etc. 

MP3 Streaming over IBB is far better than _nothing_ and that's exactly what
I have now.  I need an IM client that can do messages and files.  To hell
with HTTP, MP3, RTP, VoIP, etc, etc.  IMHO, Jabber should not deal directly
with any of these.  And hence, DTCP is not my concern at all, but there is
one shiny thing I like about it: IBB.

I don't want to throw up a server and portforward, if available, everytime
I want a file sent or recieved.  For the ease of use of it working "no
matter what" (assuming an admin doesn't freak out and kill IBB), I can
handle the speed hit and the karma screw.

tlburnett at ucdavis.edu

More information about the Standards mailing list