3 ms·
"valid" aside from the fact that there's no way in this world or the next that all of that video and remote desktop traffic is going though Google's servers.
by drivebyacct2 13y ago
"valid" aside from the fact that there's no way in this world or the next that all of that video and remote desktop traffic is going though Google's servers.
- hobolobo 13y agoSo the traffic won't have 'direct access' to Google's servers? That's reassuring :)
- MichaelGG 13y agoSo, two users behind a proper NAT or firewall won't be able to use this feature?
- mparlane 13y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_punching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_punching tada.
- MichaelGG 13y agoYeah that's not a general solution, that's just exploiting problems in particular NAT implementations.
- mparlane 13y agoSkype did just fine with it.
- MichaelGG 13y agoIncorrect. Skype relays media via other users when two users cannot directly connect. So if you and I are behind proper NATs, and no negotiation works, then we agree on a nearby (super?)node that is accessible, and relay media through there. Hole punching _can_ work, but again, it's exploiting implementation quirks in NAT devices and isn't a general solution (though it might do pretty well). The only standard way (AFAIK) to open up NAT is via UPNP, which the client software (and NAT device) needs to support. The client then talks to the NAT device and tells it to port forward. It seems pretty common nowaday, and is more elegant and secure than the hacky "poke around and see what works" implementations.
- mparlane 13y agohttp://www.h-online.com/security/features/How-Skype-Co-get-round-firewalls-747197.html http://www.h-online.com/security/features/How-Skype-Co-get-r... Note the date, things are very different now.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]