4 ms·

Yes they would. The real problem is your home router/gateway/modem will not - and you're normally behind a NAT, which in all likelyhood does not know anything a

Yes they would. The real problem is your home router/gateway/modem will not - and you're normally behind a NAT, which in all likelyhood does not know anything about SCTP (SCTP also isn't very NAT friendly).

fulafel 13y ago
Sctp only breaks if the ISP or user has turned on NAT. A router wouldn't break it. NAT does bad things to IP (breaks the fundamental guarantees).
- hueving 13y ago
  >Sctp only breaks if the ISP or user has turned on NAT. This describes 95%+ of home users. NAT may do bad things to IP, but if you are an app developer that depends on no NAT, you're product is going to have a very limited market of people that can use it.
  - fulafel 13y ago
    IPv6!
    - mfukar 13y ago
      NAT isn't going away with IPv6.
      - fulafel 13y ago
        IPv4 NAT is not, but you can sidestep it by using IPv6. Look at eg how XBox One is doing it. Or are you predicting the rise of IPv6 NAT?
        piranha 13y ago
        What is Xbox One doing?
        fulafel 13y ago
        They are tunneling IPv6 over Teredo if native IPv6 is unavailable. They provide their own relay servers for people who have NAT traversal incapable connectivity. Teredo is a Microsoft-developed (but IETF-standadized) NAT-traversing IPv6-over-IPv4 tunneling method. http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2013/10/microsoft-the-best-xbox-one-gaming-experience-will-be-over-ipv6/ http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2013/10/micros... http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-v6ops-0.pdf http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-v6ops-0....
- drdaeman 13y ago
  An ISP employee here. We did nothing particular to support SCTP, so I got curious whenever it works. Just ran a pair of socat's (sctp-listen:12345 and sctp:example.org:12345) and it worked perfectly. In our setup, NAT's done on a GNU/Linux machines in a simplest possible way, almost like `iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.0.0.0/8 -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE` (we offer dynamic globally-routeable IPv4 addresses first, but when our pools are drained, we have no choice but do NAT for v4). So, it seems, almost every ISP who uses software routers (they're stable, performant and cheap) should be SCTP-friendly. No idea about Ciscos and alikes, though. None we have does NAT, and given I'm not a Cisco guy I'm not going to reconfigure one just to test things.
drdaeman 13y ago
Most cheap home routers are Linux-based, so the adoption plan seems trivial. Linus should just make STCP NAT support the default with a comment "router manufacturers - please don't disable", so the next time router vendors update their kernels, it gets built into. Then just wait for 3-4 years.
- zurn 13y ago
  Look how long it's taking IPv6 support in consumer NAT boxes, and that's something that's hyped and all vendors are officialy drumming for it, and has been finished spec-wise since the 90s. SCTP has had 14+ years - SCTP made standards track in 2000 (rfc2960) and was in use before that. Chicken and egg. This is why NAT is bad. It's has introduced a systemic freeze in the Internet, breaking the inert router/smart host model that used to enable deployment of new protocols.
  - drdaeman 13y ago
    IPv6 is complicated matter. Even if kernel has ipv6 module/support built in, it's still a very tiny first step for router to support IPv6. On the other hand, STCP NAT support is just one kernel config option away and no further configuration's needed. A complete no-brainer - just persuade those building routers' firmware to not tick it off.

fulafel 13y ago

Sctp only breaks if the ISP or user has turned on NAT. A router wouldn't break it. NAT does bad things to IP (breaks the fundamental guarantees).

hueving 13y ago
>Sctp only breaks if the ISP or user has turned on NAT. This describes 95%+ of home users. NAT may do bad things to IP, but if you are an app developer that depends on no NAT, you're product is going to have a very limited market of people that can use it.
- fulafel 13y ago
  IPv6!
  - mfukar 13y ago
    NAT isn't going away with IPv6.
    - fulafel 13y ago
      IPv4 NAT is not, but you can sidestep it by using IPv6. Look at eg how XBox One is doing it. Or are you predicting the rise of IPv6 NAT?
      - piranha 13y ago
        What is Xbox One doing?
        fulafel 13y ago
        They are tunneling IPv6 over Teredo if native IPv6 is unavailable. They provide their own relay servers for people who have NAT traversal incapable connectivity. Teredo is a Microsoft-developed (but IETF-standadized) NAT-traversing IPv6-over-IPv4 tunneling method. http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2013/10/microsoft-the-best-xbox-one-gaming-experience-will-be-over-ipv6/ http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2013/10/micros... http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-v6ops-0.pdf http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-v6ops-0....
drdaeman 13y ago
An ISP employee here. We did nothing particular to support SCTP, so I got curious whenever it works. Just ran a pair of socat's (sctp-listen:12345 and sctp:example.org:12345) and it worked perfectly. In our setup, NAT's done on a GNU/Linux machines in a simplest possible way, almost like `iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.0.0.0/8 -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE` (we offer dynamic globally-routeable IPv4 addresses first, but when our pools are drained, we have no choice but do NAT for v4). So, it seems, almost every ISP who uses software routers (they're stable, performant and cheap) should be SCTP-friendly. No idea about Ciscos and alikes, though. None we have does NAT, and given I'm not a Cisco guy I'm not going to reconfigure one just to test things.

drdaeman 13y ago

Most cheap home routers are Linux-based, so the adoption plan seems trivial. Linus should just make STCP NAT support the default with a comment "router manufacturers - please don't disable", so the next time router vendors update their kernels, it gets built into. Then just wait for 3-4 years.

zurn 13y ago
Look how long it's taking IPv6 support in consumer NAT boxes, and that's something that's hyped and all vendors are officialy drumming for it, and has been finished spec-wise since the 90s. SCTP has had 14+ years - SCTP made standards track in 2000 (rfc2960) and was in use before that. Chicken and egg. This is why NAT is bad. It's has introduced a systemic freeze in the Internet, breaking the inert router/smart host model that used to enable deployment of new protocols.
- drdaeman 13y ago
  IPv6 is complicated matter. Even if kernel has ipv6 module/support built in, it's still a very tiny first step for router to support IPv6. On the other hand, STCP NAT support is just one kernel config option away and no further configuration's needed. A complete no-brainer - just persuade those building routers' firmware to not tick it off.