[standards-jig] Asking the server for my IP address

Justin Karneges justin-jdev at affinix.com
Wed Nov 27 01:35:50 UTC 2002


It would simply be a convenience feature.  In the case of NAT, a user would 
currently have to make a port forward and specify his outside IP address into 
the client application.  I want to eliminate the latter step.

I agree that JOBS is the most reliable.  However, we can't be doing all of our 
file transfer through the server, can we?  Just because the user is too lazy 
to make a port forward?

In practice, providing internal/external IP addresses for P2P activity works 
very well.  Just look at AIM and ICQ.  The only time it is a problem is in 
the double-NAT with no possibility of a portfw (say, both are corporate 
employees), and that is where JOBS comes in.

-Justin

On Tuesday 26 November 2002 03:02 pm, Ben Schumacher wrote:
> I still don't see the point of this? I think Matthias made some pretty
> strong points on why this doesn't make sense, has anybody make strong
> points on why it does? If your box is on IP and is being NAT'd, then
> what good is it going to do you figure out your real IP? Is the plan to
> then pass this along to the far end as another IP that the far end won't
> be able to estabilsh a connection to? This is the exact reason we have
> things like JOBS which provide proxies for TCP connections -- it is the
> only reliable way of working around firewalls.
>
> Cheers,
>
> bs.
>
> Justin Karneges wrote:
> | Alright, this seems acceptable.  What is the next step to make this a
>
> reality?
>
> | -Justin
> |
> |>One could even make the argument that this is a stream extension instead
> |>of an application function - it would be much easier (for the server)
> |>to implement something like this, since it could be handled entirely by
> |>the stream layer:
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig




More information about the Standards mailing list