RE: RNET: Random Network Endpoint Technology

Chad Giffin <> Sat, 21 June 2008 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D08B3A688E; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F15173A688E for <>; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pdENigT3lIpk for <>; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8483A6851 for <>; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU120-W24 ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:53:12 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU120-W24CBBA5119A964ACF674CBCAA40@phx.gbl>
X-Originating-IP: []
From: Chad Giffin <>
To: Dan Wing <>
Subject: RE: RNET: Random Network Endpoint Technology
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:53:12 -0400
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2008 17:53:12.0148 (UTC) FILETIME=[AC39C940:01C8D3C7]
Cc: IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> From:
> To:;
> Subject: RE: RNET: Randon Network Endpoint Technology
> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:57:18 -0700
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [] On
>> Behalf Of Chad Giffin
>> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:49 AM
>> To: IETF
>> Subject: RNET: Randon Network Endpoint Technology
>> June 18th, 1145h CDT
>> To all members of the IETF mailing list;
>> I have posted a description, twice, of the RNET protocol
>> to this mailing list. I have also provided some updates
>> concerning peer to peer connections between RNET Hosts.
>> I have yet to receive /any/ response (other then an
>> email with an empty body) concerning by postings.
> Here is a response, which appeared to have been CC'd to you:

This message was actually posted by me :-)

> I agree with Eric; based on the description of RNET, it sounds much like STUN
> combined with a rendezvous protocol (e.g., SIP). RNET is also similar to
> HIP's NAT traversal.
> STUN is RFC3489 and draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis. SIP is RFC3261. The use of
> STUN with SIP is best described in draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios. HIP's
> NAT traversal is described in draft-ietf-hip-nat-traversal.

I looked, albeit briefly, at STUN and SIP.  these protocols are not at all like what I am suggesting.

RNET will punch through firewalls/NATs without a problem.   Peer to Peer communication using RNET Host Addresses, however, may present a problem when there are NATs between them.  (The answer to this is simply to allow authenticated RNET Route Requests to be made at every NAT/firewall)

I think you missed the point of RNET.  The point being that you have a valid IPv6 IP address and are able to plug into any part of the internet and use it from that location.   Your address is NOT advertised.  The routes made for communication by your RNET Host decay so as not to polute the internet's routing tables.

RNET is quite simple, easy to impliment.

RNET Route Requests and RNET Error Messages can be put together under a new IP protocol, named RNET.  All that needs to be done is to have a new protocol number assigned for this purpose.

> Hope that helps,
> -d

Thank-you for your response.
I appreciate it greatly.

>> Yours Truly,
>> Chad Christopher Giffin
>> a.k.a. "typo"
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF mailing list

Find hidden words, unscramble celebrity names, or try the ultimate crossword puzzle with Live Search Games. Play now!
IETF mailing list