Re:Why TCP Over TCP Is a Bad Idea (2001)
by chetanahuja on Saturday March 28, 2015 @02:30PM
(#9282278)
Note that any NAT that drops UDP packets altogether will basically disable DNS and VOIP type applications or at least degrade the experience in serious ways. I haven't come across many such NATs recently.
Me neither. I have come across networks that filter everything but a few TCP ports (like 80 and 443), but that's a matter of draconian firewall policy rather than a NAT limitation.
I have come across networks that filter everything but a few TCP ports (like 80 and 443)
Another point scored for TCP in TCP with an SSL VPN. :-)
Only if your TCP VPN is listening on one of the allowed ports ;-)
(I do keep a TCP VPN running on port 443 ready to go for these situations, but UDP is always my first choice.)
Re:Why TCP Over TCP Is a Bad Idea (2001)
by selectodude on Saturday March 28, 2015 @02:31PM
(#9282280)
Google is apparently paying for fiber connections to Starbucks, since AT&T DSL wasn't getting it done.
Similarly, I find the Internet at my local Starbucks to be some of the fastest, most-reliable networks around; even faster than some local ISPs hooking up to my home.