Owen DeLong wrote:
> Showing that you don't actually understand what everyone else means when
> they say "end-to-end".
Where is your point only to demonstrate that you don't understand
what"end to end" means?
> No carrier is going to implement that for obvious reasons.
>
> Besides, that's not transparent end-to-end, that's predictably opaque
> end-to-end.
With no reasoning of you, I can simply say:
WRONG
>> UPnP provides information for clients to restore IP and TCP
>> headers from local ones back to global ones, which is visible
>> to applications.
> But it doesn't work across multiple layers of NAT.
It is trivially easy to make UPnP works across multiple layers
of UPnP capable NAT.
> Now, redraw the diagram for the real world scenario:
>
> host <-> UPnP NAT <-> Carrier NAT <-> Internet <-> Carrier NAT <-> UPnP NAT
> <-> host
>
> Tell me again how the application signaling from UPnP survives through all
> that and comes up with correct answers?
It is trivially:
host <-> home UPnP NAT <-> Carrier UPnP NAT <-> Internet
<-> Carrier UPnP NAT <-> home UPnP NAT <-> host
Masataka Ohta
