5 ms·

> "Lots of people think NAT is a show-stopper for peer to peer communication, but it isn’t. More than 90% of NATs can be traversed, with most being traversable

by yry4345 12y ago

> "Lots of people think NAT is a show-stopper for peer to peer communication, but it isn’t. More than 90% of NATs can be traversed, with most being traversable in reliable and deterministic ways." All the traversal methods require coordination with a 3rd party (ie: centralized) server so - yes - this is a show stopper for P2P. As public addresses become more scarce, and carrier NAT becomes common, the problem of finding that intermediary will only get worse. IPv6 should be a solution, but it won't get off the ground if carrier NAT gets priority, for example. (Or if ISPs just put firewalls everywhere, and other "best practices"...)

wmf 12y ago
So you define P2P so as to force users to type in IP addresses of other users?
- yry4345 12y ago
  Unfortunately, that does not provide a solution. Since public IP addresses are becomming scarcer, and since at least one side needs a global address, all of the workarounds for NAT will tend to centralize the 3rd party coordination/proxy role. Even IPv6, which should provide direct addressability in the long term (assuming ISPs provide it on the wire), may wind up increasing the centralization in the short term (creating a single point of failure and censorship) if the only way to connect to the IPv6 Internet is to tunnel into a major tunnel broker; rather than hundreds of ISPs, there may only be a handful - easy targets for mandatory kill-switches, censorship, and surveillance - and what started with more addresses than stars in the universe, will have degenerated into a global hub-and-spoke network.
zrm 12y ago
> All the traversal methods require coordination with a 3rd party (ie: centralized) server so - yes - this is a show stopper for P2P. Third party and centralized aren't the same thing. Any peer with a real public address or even a manual port mapping or a router that supports NAT-PMP or PCP can play the role of the "server" in this context.
- yry4345 12y ago
  In order to boot strap a connection to a P2P network, one must contact a well-known server. It doesn't matter if the well known server is a "peer" that happens to be running the same software, or if it's the BitTorrent DHT bootstrap servers, what matters is that that peer has a disproportionate amount of authority and influence over the network, amounting to a single point of censorship or failure. NAT (and firewalls anywhere except the networked computer - even at the subscriber's router) contribute to/create this asymmetry, where one side has to beg to connect to another, and so everyone winds up settling on the most-memorable 3rd party. Everyone has heard of the king (or Verisign), and so the rich get richer...
  - zrm 12y ago
    There is no requirement that it be a single node or that they all be operated by the same party.
    - yry4345 12y ago
      It's not a requirement, it's just that it tends toward it naturally due to the asymmetric addressability. As long as there are two or more global addresses available to the public on which to run STUN, UPnP, etc, there will be "competition" but it is immeasurably weak compared to what would be possible with direct (non-NAT) addressability. In an environment without those obstacles, systems are naturally designed in a P2P way - simply from the need for scalability. Case in point A: Skype leveraged an initial P2P design at a time where direct addressability was the norm (and there were many freeware alternatives that allowed direct dialing)... Now that Skype has become dominant, it has switched to a centralized infrastructure 1) because it's owners can (it makes administration, censorship, and surveillance easiest), and 2) because a P2P model no longer makes sense with most users relying on their centralized bootstrap servers. Case in point B: Dropbox and similar services have replaced self-hosted FTP, I would argue, simply because noone wants to maintain static port mappings and Dropbox is easier. Even without other incentives, the presence of NAT is a centralizing force that - taken to the extreme (such as with carrier NAT) outright precludes P2P - and that is undesirable. In an Internet with NAT (or any other violation of the end-to-end principal) all systems suffer the same fate: centralization (the antithesis of P2P).

by yry4345 12y ago

wmf 12y ago

So you define P2P so as to force users to type in IP addresses of other users?

yry4345 12y ago
Unfortunately, that does not provide a solution. Since public IP addresses are becomming scarcer, and since at least one side needs a global address, all of the workarounds for NAT will tend to centralize the 3rd party coordination/proxy role. Even IPv6, which should provide direct addressability in the long term (assuming ISPs provide it on the wire), may wind up increasing the centralization in the short term (creating a single point of failure and censorship) if the only way to connect to the IPv6 Internet is to tunnel into a major tunnel broker; rather than hundreds of ISPs, there may only be a handful - easy targets for mandatory kill-switches, censorship, and surveillance - and what started with more addresses than stars in the universe, will have degenerated into a global hub-and-spoke network.

zrm 12y ago

> All the traversal methods require coordination with a 3rd party (ie: centralized) server so - yes - this is a show stopper for P2P. Third party and centralized aren't the same thing. Any peer with a real public address or even a manual port mapping or a router that supports NAT-PMP or PCP can play the role of the "server" in this context.

yry4345 12y ago
In order to boot strap a connection to a P2P network, one must contact a well-known server. It doesn't matter if the well known server is a "peer" that happens to be running the same software, or if it's the BitTorrent DHT bootstrap servers, what matters is that that peer has a disproportionate amount of authority and influence over the network, amounting to a single point of censorship or failure. NAT (and firewalls anywhere except the networked computer - even at the subscriber's router) contribute to/create this asymmetry, where one side has to beg to connect to another, and so everyone winds up settling on the most-memorable 3rd party. Everyone has heard of the king (or Verisign), and so the rich get richer...
- zrm 12y ago
  There is no requirement that it be a single node or that they all be operated by the same party.
  - yry4345 12y ago
    It's not a requirement, it's just that it tends toward it naturally due to the asymmetric addressability. As long as there are two or more global addresses available to the public on which to run STUN, UPnP, etc, there will be "competition" but it is immeasurably weak compared to what would be possible with direct (non-NAT) addressability. In an environment without those obstacles, systems are naturally designed in a P2P way - simply from the need for scalability. Case in point A: Skype leveraged an initial P2P design at a time where direct addressability was the norm (and there were many freeware alternatives that allowed direct dialing)... Now that Skype has become dominant, it has switched to a centralized infrastructure 1) because it's owners can (it makes administration, censorship, and surveillance easiest), and 2) because a P2P model no longer makes sense with most users relying on their centralized bootstrap servers. Case in point B: Dropbox and similar services have replaced self-hosted FTP, I would argue, simply because noone wants to maintain static port mappings and Dropbox is easier. Even without other incentives, the presence of NAT is a centralizing force that - taken to the extreme (such as with carrier NAT) outright precludes P2P - and that is undesirable. In an Internet with NAT (or any other violation of the end-to-end principal) all systems suffer the same fate: centralization (the antithesis of P2P).