/* HINT: Search archives @ http://www.indyramp.com/masq/ before posting! */
John D. Hardin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > #define PORT_MASQ_END 65535
> > #define PORT_MASQ_SPAN 4096
> > #define PORT_MASQ_BEGIN (PORT_MASQ_END - PORT_MASQ_SPAN)
>
> That's probably a good idea, though I'd recommend ending at about
> 65500 to avoid accidental boundary errors.
It's been a long time since I read anything about this, and I thought
there was some mention "in an old README file" that said that some
protocols do make use of the ports just below 65535, which is why masq
avoids those.
One thing I've been wondering, is there some particular reason why the
number of ports is a power of 2? Could the number of ports be set to
5000, or 17239, without causing any havoc amid the kernel data
structures? Sometimes there is an assumption about using bit-masks
within structures, so that only powers-of-two make sense for structure
sizes, but I'm not very familiar with the masq internals, so only a
developer would likely know...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fuzzy Fox) || "Good judgment comes from experience.
sometimes known as David DeSimone || Experience comes from bad judgment."
http://www.dallas.net/~fox/ || -- Life Lessons
_______________________________________________
Masq maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Admin requests can be handled at http://www.indyramp.com/masq-list/ -- THIS INCLUDES
UNSUBSCRIBING!
or email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE read the HOWTO and search the archives before posting.
You can start your search at http://www.indyramp.com/masq/
Please keep general linux/unix/pc/internet questions off the list.
