4 ms·

> With having a public IP address, PMP enabled on my router, and DNS registration I have this today. That’s cool for you, congratulations. I’m talking about t

> With having a public IP address, PMP enabled on my router, and DNS registration I have this today. That’s cool for you, congratulations. I’m talking about the broader internet at large, and the billions of users on it, and the software that is written for these billions of users. This software does not behave the way your cool phone does. Because people’s IP’s change. They’re behind firewalls they are unable or don’t understand how to configure. We don’t write software this way for a lot of good reasons. Now, I keep talking about this, then you bring up “but I have this use case, what about that?” Demanding an answer as if I give a shit that you want to run a SIP phone at your house, and you’re willing to configure your firewall, etc. My whole point (!!!) is that what you’re doing is not what the billions of people using the internet are doing. When I bought my mom an iPhone, I didn’t have to tell her “ok so, FaceTime only works at your house, you have to reconfigure this DDNS service when your IP changes, you have to configure your router this way, and don’t ever leave the WiFi network or it won’t work, but thank god for ipv6, because it means dad can do all this too for his phone!” No. Because FaceTime doesn’t work that way, nor could it ever, because doing true peer to peer calling was never a thing that would have ever worked at scale. It’s not being held back by NAT. It’s being held back because it was never gonna work in the first place.*

vel0city 2y ago
> and you’re willing to configure your firewall I didn't have to configure the firewall, that happened automatically with PMP. That thing you didn't even know existed until a few hours ago. But somehow you know all that is and is not possible. All that could have been if things were different.
- ninkendo 2y ago
  Sick burn bro I mean if you’re just going to sling ad-hominems around and invent your own argument so you have a chance at winning it, sure. I’m not aware of the specific RFC’s du jour that are used for auto-configuring routers. But after spending some time looking it up, it seems relatively niche (not as widespread as UPnP), and it appears the last 3 routers I’ve owned don’t support it. (I run an openbsd box with pf currently, but my unifi gateway before that didn’t support it, and the shitbox gateway Comcast gave me before that certainly didn’t support it. I could run a service on my openbsd box to support it but it wouldn’t make a difference because I’m perfectly capable of editing my pf.conf as it is.) But if you’re gonna dig up other posts of mine to try and get a dig in at me, maybe at least read the rest of the post? You certainly haven’t done a good job of that so far. Because I indicated that of course a protocol like this ought to exist, but what percentage of users of the broader internet are actually running a router that supports this? If you wanted to come out with a video calling app that only worked if your users had PMP working, what market share would you be losing out on? That’s the topic of discussion here after all (not that that’ll stop you from inventing your own discussion as you’ve continued to do.)
  - vel0city 2y ago
    > I’m not aware of the specific RFC’s du jour Funny way to say you don't know what you're talking about. If you don't know what technologies are actually out there how can you say what is and is not possible? > but what percentage of users of the broader internet are actually running a router that supports this? Most who aren't running their own home rolled pf setup that can't be bothered to read about "the latest" (over a decade old) RFCs. And yeah, last I ran a UniFi gateway it supported PMP. That was several years ago. If it's a recent model device with halfway decent IPv6 support it's practically a sure thing it's got PMP support. Maybe disabled, but it supports it. Same with UPnP, might be disabled, but probably supported.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ninkendo 2y ago
      I guess you really enjoy feeling superior so I’m just going to give you this one. You win. You’re very smart and you know more about router software than I do. (I’ll leave you to ponder whether this changes my point at all, but I don’t think it really matters. You seem to be pretty fixated on getting your digs in, so maybe we’ll just end the discussion here. Good day.)
      - vel0city 2y ago
        > I guess you really enjoy feeling superior > Sick burn bro > My post was basically the biggest pile of sarcasm I could conjure and you still took it seriously, congratulations! > That’s cool for you, congratulations > not that that’ll stop you from inventing your own discussion > I don’t think I’ve met someone that truly thinks technological progress stopped in the 1990s and that URL’s and DNS are all we actually need. And yet you accuse me of ad homenims for pointing out your acknowledgement of not knowing of the last decade+ of networking tech and that I have a need to feel superior. Pot meet kettle buddy. You've spent so much effort telling me what's possible or not, berating me multiple times, while acknowledging you haven't kept up with decade+ old tech.

vel0city 2y ago

> and you’re willing to configure your firewall I didn't have to configure the firewall, that happened automatically with PMP. That thing you didn't even know existed until a few hours ago. But somehow you know all that is and is not possible. All that could have been if things were different.

ninkendo 2y ago
Sick burn bro I mean if you’re just going to sling ad-hominems around and invent your own argument so you have a chance at winning it, sure. I’m not aware of the specific RFC’s du jour that are used for auto-configuring routers. But after spending some time looking it up, it seems relatively niche (not as widespread as UPnP), and it appears the last 3 routers I’ve owned don’t support it. (I run an openbsd box with pf currently, but my unifi gateway before that didn’t support it, and the shitbox gateway Comcast gave me before that certainly didn’t support it. I could run a service on my openbsd box to support it but it wouldn’t make a difference because I’m perfectly capable of editing my pf.conf as it is.) But if you’re gonna dig up other posts of mine to try and get a dig in at me, maybe at least read the rest of the post? You certainly haven’t done a good job of that so far. Because I indicated that of course a protocol like this ought to exist, but what percentage of users of the broader internet are actually running a router that supports this? If you wanted to come out with a video calling app that only worked if your users had PMP working, what market share would you be losing out on? That’s the topic of discussion here after all (not that that’ll stop you from inventing your own discussion as you’ve continued to do.)
- vel0city 2y ago
  > I’m not aware of the specific RFC’s du jour Funny way to say you don't know what you're talking about. If you don't know what technologies are actually out there how can you say what is and is not possible? > but what percentage of users of the broader internet are actually running a router that supports this? Most who aren't running their own home rolled pf setup that can't be bothered to read about "the latest" (over a decade old) RFCs. And yeah, last I ran a UniFi gateway it supported PMP. That was several years ago. If it's a recent model device with halfway decent IPv6 support it's practically a sure thing it's got PMP support. Maybe disabled, but it supports it. Same with UPnP, might be disabled, but probably supported.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ninkendo 2y ago
    I guess you really enjoy feeling superior so I’m just going to give you this one. You win. You’re very smart and you know more about router software than I do. (I’ll leave you to ponder whether this changes my point at all, but I don’t think it really matters. You seem to be pretty fixated on getting your digs in, so maybe we’ll just end the discussion here. Good day.)
    - vel0city 2y ago
      > I guess you really enjoy feeling superior > Sick burn bro > My post was basically the biggest pile of sarcasm I could conjure and you still took it seriously, congratulations! > That’s cool for you, congratulations > not that that’ll stop you from inventing your own discussion > I don’t think I’ve met someone that truly thinks technological progress stopped in the 1990s and that URL’s and DNS are all we actually need. And yet you accuse me of ad homenims for pointing out your acknowledgement of not knowing of the last decade+ of networking tech and that I have a need to feel superior. Pot meet kettle buddy. You've spent so much effort telling me what's possible or not, berating me multiple times, while acknowledging you haven't kept up with decade+ old tech.