Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow)]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote:
> "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?"
>
> Sure it is, but the point is if it's easier to deliver then the price will
> go down and more people will choose to use it.  That's kind of my point.

I don't know that price is the problem with carbonite, or any backup solution.
I think most folk don't see why they OUGHT to backup their
pictures/etc... until they needed to get them from a backup :(

> Carbonite (and others) have built a decent business, but imagine if their
> costs were cut by ~15% because they didn't have to deal with NAT transversal
> they could offer more services for the same amount of money or offer the

I doubt it's 15%, if it is... wow they seem to be doing it wrong.

> same service for less.  Either would result in more people using that kind
> of service.
>

this is a point problem (backup for carbonite), there are lots of
things that work 'just fine' with NAT (practically everything... it
would seem) I'm not sure digging more into why carbonite/etc are
'hard' (because they aren't, because they are working...) is helpful.

> Imagine what might be possible if direct communication would work without
> port forwarding rules inside your neighborhood.

I can imagine that, I have that silly thing that my dsl modem does
(zeroconf or whatever crazy sauce my windows ME desktop does to tell
the 'router' to open a port so johnny down the street can chat me).

also I have ipv6, so i  have open access directly to my internal
network. (so do 70+% of the rest of the comcast user base... and TWC
and ...)

> "no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the
> 'fastest player' to be the server for group play..."
>
> That's not WoW, it might be Diablo III or StarCraft (both Blizzard products)
>

you'll note in my first message about this (not the morse code one) I
said I don't play games so call it angband (http://rephial.org/)

> "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."
>
> It doesn't "just work" there is a real cost and complexity even if you're
> using UPNP or you're comfortable doing the port forwarding manually to get
> around it to a certain extent.  Session border controllers cost tens of
> thousands of dollars to handle SIP sessions behind NAT.

folk could deploy v6 though, eh? it's not costing THAT much I guess if
they can't get off their duffs and deploy v6 on the consumer networks
that don't already have v6 deployed.

You can't be all: "NAT IS HARD!!! AND EXPENSIVE!!!" and not deploy v6.

Frankly, SBCs exist for a whole host of reasons unrelated to NAT, so
that's a fine red herring you've also brought up.

-chris