<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

To: David Lang <david.lang,AT,digitalinsight,DOT,com>
Subject: Re: Replays - thoughts on Gutmann response
From: "Eric M. Hopper" <hopper,AT,omnifarious,DOT,org>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:24:46 -0500
Cc: cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0310072203561.19619@dlang.diginsite.com>
Organization: Omnifarious Software
References: <1065588643.14888.125.camel@monster.omnifarious.org> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0310072203561.19619@dlang.diginsite.com>

On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 00:05, David Lang wrote:
> actually I would say exactly the opposite, TCP is MUCH easier to route
> through a firewall and NAT the UDP is.

I had a tunnel through my workplace's firewall at my last job.  I set it
up only having any control of my firewall at home.  I had no control of
the firewall at work, and while the IT guy permitted the tunnel, I
wouldn't have gotten it had he had to modify the firewall at his end.

Now, can you explain to me how my computer at home could've initiated a
TCP connection for a key exchange to my computer at work?

BTW, it had no problems initiating a key exchange via UDP.

There's an excellent C/C++/Python/Unix/Linux programmer with a wide
range of other experience and system admin skills who needs work.
Namely, me. http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper/resume.html
-- Eric Hopper <hopper,AT,omnifarious,DOT,org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]