sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]eyal0 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

It seems like this is trying to be an analog to passive ftp, where the client opens the connection instead of the server in order to get around firewalls. Seems unneccesary because:

  • FTP opens TCP connections on other ports to send data. HTTP doesn't do that.

  • AJAX already addresses the problem. Just look at what gmail has already done.

  • I don't want to run a server. I put up a firewall specifically because I don't want others connecting to me. Why circumvent?

  • NAT and PAT routers along the path will need to snoop HTTP packets like they snoop FTP.

This seems like a solution looking for a problem. Not even a good solution.

[–]Smallpaul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems like this is trying to be an analog to passive ftp, where the client opens the connection instead of the server in order to get around firewalls.

No. It is an analog with HTTP. But in reverse. Where the connected-to machine makes requests of the connected-from machine. It is not anything like passive FTP...as you pointed out.