How NAT traversal works (2020)
Modern computing seems to be a story of "worse is better", and not just the classical "worse is better" of Gabriel's paper but something that amounts to "worse is better squared". Gabriel bemoaned the adoption of Unix and C over more "well-thought-out" designs, but Unix and C were at least designed. ("Say what you will, at least it's an ethos.") The same could go for TCP/IP's lean design as opposed to the heavyweight OSI model. But it seems like even these designs are too onerous for the modern day, and instead we build what would normally go on top of Unix or TCP/IP on the Web. All platforms are now the Web platform, which was never designed to run programs and hence is a non-cohesive mess. All networking is now client-server, or indeed is now just HTTP requests: goodbye end-to-end principle (hello NAT!), goodbye protocols other than TCP or UDP. We can build the same things on this platform as we did with native platforms, but we have to do it using kludgy methods which sacrifice a lot of performance and only work 95% of the time: so instead of TCP, we get WebRTC, and instead of assembly we have WebAssembly. And what do we gain? We gain security, and we gain ease of installation (just go to www.zombo.com vs go to zombo.com, click on "Downloads", click on "Windows x64", wait 4 minutes for it to download... and so on).<p>Can we do better? I think we can: if operating systems caught on to capability-based security, then the Web platform could become a legacy platform. (We see that phone OSes, which use capability based security, still direct us to "the app" rather than "the site".) And adoption of IPv6 could void all the kludgy workaround of NAT that we've had to develop.<p>But we live in the world we inherit, rather than the one we imagine, so currently all we can do is traverse NATs and write webapps.