12 ms·

What about it? That's not a problem home-users have: They NAT. Meanwhile in the enterprise, 80/443 is frequently locked into a particular (cheap) HTTP proxy s

by geocar 8y ago

What about it? That's not a problem home-users have: They NAT. Meanwhile in the enterprise, 80/443 is frequently locked into a particular (cheap) HTTP proxy server that can't manage basic features of HTTP correctly.

geezerjay 8y ago
> That's not a problem home-users have: Actually, it is. Furthermore, I'm assuming you don't expect applications to work only in the confines of a lan. There are strong reasons why HTTP is highly favoured for communication protocols. Heck, whole industry protocols have been scrapped in favour of HTTP-based ones for this problem alone. See RTP and why it has been abandoned by HTTP-based protocols such as MPEG-DASH, and why the industry made it their point to develop a whole new video streaming protocol based on HTTP.
- geocar 8y ago
  > Actually, it is. I'm saying almost all home-users have NAT and can communicate to remote services on most high ports. If you're claiming otherwise, you should be able to provide some evidence to back that up. > There are strong reasons why HTTP is highly favoured for communication protocols. Yes. Like where they don't control the client, as in the part right after the part you quoted. What exactly is your point?
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    >I'm saying almost all home-users have NAT and can communicate to remote services on most high ports. Sorry, that's patently false and flies in the face of reality. >If you're claiming otherwise, you should be able to provide some evidence to back that up. You can start here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17569715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17569715 > Yes. Like where they don't control the client That is patently false. The problems isn't caused by not controlling the client. The primary problem is that they don't control the network, which means each and every single node between client and server, and HTTP reduces or eliminates the chance that one of those nodes doesn't cooperate.

by geocar 8y ago

geezerjay 8y ago

> That's not a problem home-users have: Actually, it is. Furthermore, I'm assuming you don't expect applications to work only in the confines of a lan. There are strong reasons why HTTP is highly favoured for communication protocols. Heck, whole industry protocols have been scrapped in favour of HTTP-based ones for this problem alone. See RTP and why it has been abandoned by HTTP-based protocols such as MPEG-DASH, and why the industry made it their point to develop a whole new video streaming protocol based on HTTP.

geocar 8y ago
> Actually, it is. I'm saying almost all home-users have NAT and can communicate to remote services on most high ports. If you're claiming otherwise, you should be able to provide some evidence to back that up. > There are strong reasons why HTTP is highly favoured for communication protocols. Yes. Like where they don't control the client, as in the part right after the part you quoted. What exactly is your point?
- geezerjay 8y ago
  >I'm saying almost all home-users have NAT and can communicate to remote services on most high ports. Sorry, that's patently false and flies in the face of reality. >If you're claiming otherwise, you should be able to provide some evidence to back that up. You can start here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17569715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17569715 > Yes. Like where they don't control the client That is patently false. The problems isn't caused by not controlling the client. The primary problem is that they don't control the network, which means each and every single node between client and server, and HTTP reduces or eliminates the chance that one of those nodes doesn't cooperate.