RE: Port preservation
"Christopher A. Martin" <[email protected]> Tue, 27 Apr 2004 08:39:42 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.midcom |
|---|---|
| Organization | SIP1 Information Services |
| Message-ID | <004e01c42c5d$191c4400$6402a8c0@HOME2> |
I guess I should also state the port that I am describing is a listening port (which is often also the source port) of the server being NATted, while I am at it. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christopher A. Martin Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 8:09 AM To: 'Cullen Jennings'; 'Jonathan Rosenberg' Cc: 'Yutaka Takeda'; 'Midcom'; [email protected] Subject: RE: [midcom] Port preservation Ya, clients typically do use random ports, I am only speaking from a server standpoint (Enterprises don't typically static nat a client). :) Chris -----Original Message----- From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 12:37 AM To: [email protected]; Jonathan Rosenberg Cc: 'Yutaka Takeda'; Midcom; [email protected] Subject: Re: [midcom] Port preservation On 4/26/04 7:00 PM, "Christopher A. Martin" <[email protected]> wrote: > For clarity, common server ports in this example would be HTTP, SMTP, > FTP, etc. Well for TCP, the NATs don't muck with ports at all. The clients I have for HTTP, SMTP, FTP, also use source ports different than the destination ports so that the clients don't have to open a port under 1024 which would require them to be running as root. _______________________________________________ midcom mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom