4 ms·
> 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 shou
by 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.