[standards-jig] JEP 65 - Bytestreams

Peter G. Millard me at pgmillard.com
Thu Dec 19 14:20:24 UTC 2002


----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jan Niehusmann" <jan at gondor.com>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 10:47:40AM -0700, Peter Millard wrote:
> > As a client author, I tend to like -65 better since it disallows the
chaotic
> > nature of multiple connections being attempted at once, this flow each
> > entity trying to contact the other on potentially up to 3 sockets just
seems
> > to lead to a state chart that I'm not sure I want to implement.
>
> I agree that 65 looks much cleaner in that regard, but at a cost: The
> user may have to wait for a TCP timeout (in the order of 30s-1m) if the
> first connection attempt doesn't work. Do you have a solution for that
> problem?
>
> A delay of up to 10s may be acceptable, but 1m is not!
[SNIP..]

My assertion is that clients will ALWAYS know whether or not they are behind
a firewall, and should not expose their local IP unless they are not behind
a firewall. I've stated it before... this is how ALL network apps that would
normally "listen" work on my desktop ([x] I'm behind a firewall). If I have
a few people that are on my same network, my client should have a preference
setup for those JIDs, so I can expose my local IP to just them. (This is
basically white-listing for p2p connections). These are 2 simple things that
will mitigate the "wait for a TCP timeout here" stuff several people have
mentioned. It's the job of the client/consumer applications of this protocol
to use it "wisely".

pgm.




More information about the Standards mailing list