<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sniffing the Google Talk Packet Stream</title>
	<atom:link href="http://saunderslog.com/2005/08/27/sniffing-the-google-talk-packet-stream/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://saunderslog.com/2005/08/27/sniffing-the-google-talk-packet-stream/</link>
	<description>A daily round table on the tech industry with experts and callers from all over the globe. Join us as we pick apart the news and get to the meat of what\'s happening out there.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:38:12 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Frank Miller</title>
		<link>http://saunderslog.com/2005/08/27/sniffing-the-google-talk-packet-stream/#comment-148</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:04:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://saunderslog.com/2005/08/27/sniffing-the-google-talk-packet-stream/#comment-148</guid>
		<description>While this might seem smart, I'm not sure it works.  In a typical situation where both GT clients are behind a firewall, they still would not be able to talk since the initial STUN binding requests would not make it through the firewalls.

More likely they are including a STUN server to be compliant with ICE, another standard (fortunately) used to do NAT traversal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While this might seem smart, I&#8217;m not sure it works.  In a typical situation where both GT clients are behind a firewall, they still would not be able to talk since the initial STUN binding requests would not make it through the firewalls.</p>
<p>More likely they are including a STUN server to be compliant with ICE, another standard (fortunately) used to do NAT traversal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
