Why TCP Over TCP Is a Bad Idea (2001)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why TCP Over TCP Is a Bad Idea (2001) by agwa on Saturday March 28, 2015 @03:00PM (#9282369)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why TCP Over TCP Is a Bad Idea (2001) by minimax on Saturday March 28, 2015 @03:33PM (#9282483)

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. :-)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why TCP Over TCP Is a Bad Idea (2001) by agwa on Saturday March 28, 2015 @03:51PM (#9282546)

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.)

[ Parent | on HN ]