This is interesting commentary. Sightspeed has not give us any specifics on how they do it. They've just said that they "understand how NATs work" better than anybody else.

If you look at the implicit NAT behavior analysis that was part of the original STUN draft, this statement becomes even more interesting. During the recent update to that standard, the people involved, many of whom are working for Cisco and other huge vendors of networking equipment have basically backed away from that, removing the analytical process almost entirely from the bis update, primarily because they judged there are too many variations in NAT implementations.

While I would very much like to believe that by being smarter about watching the NAT and analyzing its behavior, you can make better decisions about how to travere it, I would remain skeptical however, until there are more details. Certainly if Sightspeed has some IP in this area, they are entitled to it but I'm dubious about hearing the CTO of a startup thats trying to make a big splash in the market saying simply that they are smarter than everyone and then assuming that the problem has been solved. Let them file a patent and then show us what they've done. We'll be able to tell whether they've really made a breakthrough at that point.