Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Fri Feb 27 21:29:46 UTC 2015

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> "because gameservers, backups, etc don't work just fine today in the
> 'world of nat' ??? I'm fairly certain that I can do backups to
> carbonite/etc with my nat working just fun, right? I'm also fairly
> certain that WoW (or whatever, hell I don't play games, so I'll just
> say: "Angband") etc that turn the fastest user in the group into a
> server also work just fine..."
>
> Talk to someone at Carbonite and ask them how much effort they have to exert

hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was).
I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice
server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?

> to make that work.  Also, keep in mind that your game example is not someone
> running a game server as a residential subscriber, it's a residential
> subscriber accessing a server hosted on a dedicated network.

no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the
'fastest player' to be the server for group play...

my son has a minecraft server as well behind nat, his pals all over
play on it just fine. It happens to have v6, but because the minecraft
people are apparently stuck in 1972 only v4 is a configurable
transport option, and the clients won't make AAAA queries so my AAAA
is a wasted dns few bytes.

Frankly folk that want to keep stomping up and down about NAT being a
problem are delusional. Sure direct access is nice, it simple and
whatnot, but ... really... stuff just works behind NAT as well.

-chris