http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/archives/2005/12/24/socks-vs-nat/ Sarah and Alaric Snell-Pym living in interesting times Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:02:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/archives/2005/12/24/socks-vs-nat/comment-page-1/#comment-2742 Seth Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:13:49 +0000 http://snell-pym.org.uk/archives/2005/12/24/socks-vs-nat/#comment-2742 <p>Of course, we all know that the <em>real</em> solution is IPv6 :-p</p> Of course, we all know that the real solution is IPv6 :-p

]]> http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/archives/2005/12/24/socks-vs-nat/comment-page-1/#comment-2740 andyjpb Sat, 24 Dec 2005 13:08:34 +0000 http://snell-pym.org.uk/archives/2005/12/24/socks-vs-nat/#comment-2740 <p>I've always thought that this was a good idea. I even set up a web proxy server at home. OK, it's not a SOCKS proxy, but it's along the same lines. As for peer to peer file transfers, as usual, rather than fix these things, vendors tend just to work around them despite there being a perfectly good fix available (SOCKS for example). File transfer in MSN Messenger now appears to work between two users who are both behind NAT routers. Currently, SIP is allegedly a bit more difficult when you're behind NAT but I've never had any major problems however, I do employ STUN rather than plain old SIP. SOCKS also gives you advantages over NAT as far as user authentication, etc, etc goes (I think). OK, you can bodge it with NAT too, but it's just that: a bodge. With SOCKS you can restrict which external services a user can access based on user id rather than source IP address.</p> I've always thought that this was a good idea. I even set up a web proxy server at home. OK, it's not a SOCKS proxy, but it's along the same lines. As for peer to peer file transfers, as usual, rather than fix these things, vendors tend just to work around them despite there being a perfectly good fix available (SOCKS for example). File transfer in MSN Messenger now appears to work between two users who are both behind NAT routers. Currently, SIP is allegedly a bit more difficult when you're behind NAT but I've never had any major problems however, I do employ STUN rather than plain old SIP. SOCKS also gives you advantages over NAT as far as user authentication, etc, etc goes (I think). OK, you can bodge it with NAT too, but it's just that: a bodge. With SOCKS you can restrict which external services a user can access based on user id rather than source IP address.

]]>