"Since routers don't understand IRC or even TCP..."
Have you ever heard of NAT? How about filtering/firewalling and ACLs? Do you understand how they work? And you didn't know even cheap routers can provide both of these features? My simple DSL router has built in NAT capabilities (try that without recognizing the TCP protocol). I can also setup filters based on, get this, PORT numbers; try that without ability to read TCP headers. And this isn't even touching on the more complicated capabilities of expensive Cisco routers. I've been through the four Cisco CCNA semesters, and know very well that routers are not limited to the network layer (and also know plenty about the OSI layer as well). Perhaps you'd be better off with a networking for morons book.
Never did I say a router sending RST packets when a path is not found, you seem adept at pulling garbage out of your rear. I know the router sends ICMP destination unreachable (with various subsets) packets for that purpose, but that was never a part of my point.
Again, I wasn't referring to the technical term "half-open", I was using it as my own personal description for the purpose of making a point. Obviously it's not advantageous to strictly use technical terminology when posting on a board that has nothing to do with networking; what matters is getting a point across. Apparantly this is also something you do not understand.
"I've written my own SYN-scanner, have you?" You sure seemed to have turned this into a contest. Actually, I have, and even with mIRC in fact. When opening a socket, mIRC sends a SYN packet to the target. If a RST/ACK packet is received, mIRC will report WinSock error 1006 for the socket and it can be determined that the port is closed, but not filtered. Of course a SYN/ACK response results in no WinSock error and it can be determined that the port is open, and no response assumes a filtered port. mIRC can be quite useful.
Again, when describing the "sate" of a socket, I was doing so in a non-technical, generic way. The point was to get a general idea across, not technical aspects.
Obviously as far as games go, ones which utilize UDP durring game-play are not what I was referring to. I didn't assume that people would instantly think FPSs, etc., when I say the word "game". Obviously UDP doesn't apply to this conversation in any way. While FPSs might have the majority of the market share, they aren't the majority of games in existance. Examples I was referring to include chess, checkers, Reversi, commons games that actually require intelligence, something a frag-happy teen might not be interested in.
You may think I have the big mouth, yet I posted for the purpose of helping someone. You have taken this thread completely off topic, started an argument with me, and in the process have said rediculous things like routers being unable to process/recognize TCP headers. In fact, I don't see anywhere that you've attempted to actually help. All of your arguments have been completely off topic and irrelevant of the original post made; so do everyone a favor and don't post your garbage if you don't plan on helping.
