Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices

blog.golioth.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 180 posts

Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices

#171

Post by vv_ »

baobun wrote: post #156
shipp02 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes a separate cellular modem better than an internal cellular modem? Is it because software updates are available for the separate modems? I am evaluating some Nordic semiconductor parts for a project. They seem to have an internal modem but Nordic uses zephyr. Any thoughts?

Security. On one hand, licensing requirements and regulation often mean that modems are locked down in terms of firmware updates, reference documentation, source, and capabilities. This often translates into a larger "black box" area, and one embedded inside your SoC instead of physically separate and connected over a serial bus. On the other, on-chip modems often (not sure about those Nordics) have DMA. The combinat…

> The combination of those two is scary.

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices

#172

Post by apitman »

clearint wrote: post #119

This article should clarify at the start whether TCP or UDP is under consideration. NAT idle timeouts for both are typically very different. RFC 5382 [0] specifies no less than 2 hours and 4 minutes for TCP. RFC 4787 [1] specifies no less than 2 minutes for UDP. Towards the end of the article it becomes clear that it's UDP. The example diagrams also incorrectly show port numbers exceeding 65535. The port fields in TC…

That's interesting. Do NATs in the wild tend to be spec-compliant with their timeouts?

Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices

#173

Post by Marsymars »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #141
Marsymars wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even disregarding fingerprinting, a single household doesn't have enough traffic from separate devices/users to the same servers to really matter from a privacy standpoint. If my PC uses the same IP as my partner's to talk to Google, it hardly matters for our privacy if they mix up the attribution of traffic between the two of us.

Speak for yourself. I also don't want it to be readily apparent how many different devices I have, or when I'm using which one, or how many people are in the household, or when who is home. Granted any service that I consistently interact with is likely to be able to figure out at least some of that information if they put in some effort. But I don't want to be freely providing a complete picture for zero effort. Cre…

Yeah, I mean, I share those concerns in general, but my efforts are mostly centered around aggressive ad/tracker-blocking (moderate DNS-level blocking at the network level, more aggressive at the device level + browser-level blocking) and the avoidance of non-privacy-focused services, e.g. avoiding the popular social networks entirely, and using privacy-supporting pay-for services.

Using the same IP for all of my devices, for me, generally falls into the same bucket of anti-fingerprinting techniques that are used by the Tor Browser like letterboxed resolution that I don't find practical for general use. If I want to actually prevent fingerprinting by IP, resolution, etc. then I'll actually use the Tor Browser.

Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices

#174

Post by bsder »

immibis wrote: post #165
bsder wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is often seen as more cost-effective to purchase a cellular modem with an internal MCU rather than a separate cellular modem and a host MCU to run the networking stack. This one isn't just cost--the compliance restrictions that the cellular carriers place on you are idiotic. The big one we bumped into is "must allow allow carrier initiated firmware updates with no restrictions on scheduling" which translates to…

Sounds like you need a more watertight contract and more lawyers.

A cellular carrier has a legal budget whose rounding errors are likely larger than your company's total worth.

Good luck litigating.

Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices

#176

Post by gwbas1c »

vv_ wrote: post #170
gwbas1c wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What makes a separate cellular modem better than an internal cellular modem? The US 3G shutdown required some rather expensive and unexpected upgrades. Vendors signed long-term contracts with 3G providers, and then "someone" was on the hook, to replace something, when the 3G vendors terminated their contracts prematurely. The deeper the modem was integrated into a product, the harder it was to change. The shallower…

Car manufacturers should abandon developing their own entertainment systems and instead collaborate with Apple (CarPlay) and Google (Android Auto) to improve integration and support a wider range of use cases. Unfortunately, they seem to revive these efforts every 4-6 years (e.g. Mercedes Benz) The only feature I need to control remotely in my car is preheating during winter—I wonder how they could achieve that witho…

I like the Tesla car computer a lot more than Android Auto. I just wish I could install 3rd party apps.

Part of the reason is there's no delay waiting for my phone to connect, and no random disconnections while driving.

Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices

#177

Post by immibis »

bsder wrote: post #174
immibis wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you need a more watertight contract and more lawyers.

A cellular carrier has a legal budget whose rounding errors are likely larger than your company's total worth. Good luck litigating.

All the lawyers in the world won't protect you from paying the penalties in the contract you signed when you overtly and deliberately failed to deliver.

Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices

#178

Post by vv_ »

gwbas1c wrote: post #176
vv_ wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Car manufacturers should abandon developing their own entertainment systems and instead collaborate with Apple (CarPlay) and Google (Android Auto) to improve integration and support a wider range of use cases. Unfortunately, they seem to revive these efforts every 4-6 years (e.g. Mercedes Benz) The only feature I need to control remotely in my car is preheating during winter—I wonder how they could achieve that witho…

I like the Tesla car computer a lot more than Android Auto. I just wish I could install 3rd party apps. Part of the reason is there's no delay waiting for my phone to connect, and no random disconnections while driving.

There are issues with infotainement systems in older vechicles supporting Android Auto and Apple Car Play. This is primarily because car manufacturers (or subcontractors) aren't good at integrating these systems. Often they are tight on budget too!

Personally, I’m not a fan of Tesla’s car computer. My main annoyance is the lack of physical buttons. All I want from my car is reliable navigation, seamless audio playback, and easy mobile call handling.

Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices

#179

Post by vv_ »

toast0 wrote: post #159
bluGill wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cellular modems go nonfunctional/obsolete much faster than other systems. 3g is almost entirely gone worldwide. 4g is still around, but providers are already reducing how much their towers dedicate to it. The standards body is working on 6g, who knows when that will come and push out older stuff. If the case of my car I don't care - I have never found a use for the cellular connectivity it has (if any). However there…

4g should survive better than 2g and 3g, because the 5g standard allows for mixed mode deployments where the coordination channel runs as 4g, and the slots can be 4g or 5g dependening on what the client device is capable of. Running the coordination channel with 5g encoding could be a little more efficient, but it's not a big loss compared to running a minimum size 2g/3g allocation.

EDGE and E-GPRS is going to survive for at least another 5-10 years. Although this statement might not be globally accurate.

Re: NAT Is the Enemy of Low Power Devices

#180

Post by gwbas1c »

vv_ wrote: post #178
gwbas1c wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the Tesla car computer a lot more than Android Auto. I just wish I could install 3rd party apps. Part of the reason is there's no delay waiting for my phone to connect, and no random disconnections while driving.

There are issues with infotainement systems in older vechicles supporting Android Auto and Apple Car Play. This is primarily because car manufacturers (or subcontractors) aren't good at integrating these systems. Often they are tight on budget too! Personally, I’m not a fan of Tesla’s car computer. My main annoyance is the lack of physical buttons. All I want from my car is reliable navigation, seamless audio playbac…

> All I want from my car is reliable navigation, seamless audio playback, and easy mobile call handling.

That's pretty much what the Tesla computer has. I do agree that the lack of physical buttons is a problem; and now that there are more EV makers on the marketplace the market can speak very loudly and choose other automakers.

Post reply on HN