RE: Port preservation

I see.

There is one more question.
Looking at the Cullen's STUN test result, all the port preservation 
NATs are of a cone NAT as primary behavior. Do you think there is
a reason for that? I mean, if it is 'desirable' to have a certain
port number on the NAT, and a host can talk to *multiple* hosts on 
the port number...?

Thanks,
Yutaka


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pyda Srisuresh [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 4:04 PM
> To: Yutaka Takeda; Midcom; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [midcom] Port preservation
> 
> 
> Port preservation is desirable in some limited cases where 
> applications and
> protocols require a certain number to be used for source 
> and/or destination.
> ex: IKE-v1 assumes UDP port 500 on both src and dest.
> 
> cheers,
> suresh
>  
> --- Yutaka Takeda <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > Does anyone know what the real motivation for NAT designers to 
> > implement the port preservation[1] is? Is there an actual service 
> > or application that depends on this behavior? I just realized that 
> > I know such NATs exist but why...
> > 
> > [1]
> > 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jennings-midcom-stun
> -results-00.txt
> > 
> > Yutaka
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > midcom mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
> 
> 
> =====
> 
>