nanog mailing list archives
Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question
From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:53:47 -0500
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Simon Perreault <simon.perreault () viagenie ca> wrote:
Le 2013-01-23 16:37, William Herrin a écrit :In fact, were someone to use those "worst current practices" to build some generic p2p VPN software, even old games could leverage it to allow someone behind a CGN to host.http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements A CGN that obeys these requirements will allow NAT traversal by virtue of having an Endpoint-Independent Mapping behaviour. That is the BCP. Not port prediction.
Even better. So, architecturally P2P compatibility with CGNs is a solved problem waiting only for the software to shake out. Expect some growing pains in the first generation CGNs which largely vanish in the second. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com bill () herrin us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Current thread:
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question, (continued)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Randy Bush (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Nick Hilliard (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Jean-Francois Mezei (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question William Herrin (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Christian Kratzer (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question William Herrin (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Simon Perreault (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question William Herrin (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question Simon Perreault (Jan 23)
- Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question William Herrin (Jan 23)