Talk:Hole punching (networking)

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Paine Ellsworth in topic Requested move 23 May 2021

Should rename

edit

People who are not computer-oriented would see hole-punching as something you do to a piece of paper or leather with a metal instrument. This article should be NAT hole punching. --Treekids 21:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hole Punching is more than just a computer term
Hole punching is a more general term- its page should be a *disambiguation* page. NAT hole punching, UDP hole punching, and Network address translation are the places this content should go. --Treekids (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Merges proposed by Khromatikos and Ministry of Truth

edit

Maybe this should be merged with Network address translation.

Either that or, it should be greatly expanded and reference the paper Peer-to-Peer Communication Across Network Address Translators which explains the concept in great detail. - Khromatikos 07:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Another non-stub article on the same subject with considerably more detail is UDP hole punching. Deletion or redirection there sound like two viable options. Any thoughts ?--Ministry of Truth 14:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Redirect has my vote. --Christopher Thomas 15:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
UDP hole punching is a more specific technique- it should be more specialized and NAT hole punching should be more general. No merge.
Network address translation is a more general technology, and NAT hole punching is a specific technique for NAT traversal. No merge.
--Treekids 21:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

NAT hole punching listed at Redirects for discussion

edit
 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect NAT hole punching. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 06:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2015

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved (non-admin closure) Calidum T|C 17:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply



Hole punchingNAT hole punchingHole punching should be a redirect to hole punch. I'm open to suggestions for an alternative title, but this seems to be the most common unambiguous term that includes both UDP and TCP hole punching. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 31 May 2015

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by the proposer. (non-admin closure) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply


NAT hole punchingHole punching – The article should be renamed back, as it is not necessarily related to NAT configurations. – — Dsimic (talk 

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hello! Totally agreed, but what the article describes isn't strictly about NAT configurations. Maybe "Firewall hole punching" would be a better article title? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
That hathote is fine, but the NAT hole punching article isn't necessarily about punching holes in NAT configurations. You may need to punch a hole in a firewall that has no NAT configured. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose reversing the recent move. "Hole punching" is a generic concept, not a networking-specific concept, and is most likely to refer to punching physical holes in paper. As can be read above, objections to the use of the generic title "hole punching" for this concept date back at least eight years. If there's a better title for the networking concept, I'm perfectly willing to listen to those who know more about this technology than I do and would support such a move instead. The generic title "hole punching" should be kept as it is now, a redirect to hole punch. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
How about "Firewall hole punching" instead? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have no particular objection to that title. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Wouldn't something like that be a rather unneeded formality? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 1 June 2015

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Article renamed to Hole punching (networking). (non-admin closure) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply



NAT hole punchingFirewall hole punching – What the article describes isn't strictly about NAT configurations, a hole can be punched in a firewall that has no NAT configured such as on systems providing shell access to multiple users. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Meh, others asked for a brand new proposal. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
That's a very good point! Despite the fact that firewalls and NATs are pretty much related (with the latter usually seen as a subset of the former), I'd support Hole punching (networking) as the new article title. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge with UDP hole punching

edit

Large overlap but articles UDP hole punching and hole punching (networking) are basically the same age. Ethanpet113 (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not unreasonable, but oppose as stated as UDP hole punching is an independently notable type of hole punching; if a merge were to occur it would be best to also consider the other types, ICMP hole punching and TCP hole punching. Klbrain (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Nefarious"??

edit

I'm not sure what the meaning of this is supposed to be:

"Using TCP nefarious hole punching, it is possible to send compressed SYN packets through into a common ACK path."

Is 'nefarious' a term of art? Also, the second half of the phrase is very awkwardly worded... Nucleosynth (t c) 17:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not an art term; just its every-day meaning: nefarious. Klbrain (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 23 May 2021

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hole punching (networking)Hole punching – Hole punching seems to the the PT. There is no other article by that name. Hole punching is a new dab that doesn't list multiple titles of the same name and is unnecessary. There could be a hatnote to hole punch at most. MB 18:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.