Nick Guenther wrote:
On 6/13/06, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006/06/13 22:07, Nick Guenther wrote:
> What is the prefered method for NAT-traversal these days? The options
> I know are:
> UPnP
I suppose this one doesn't work unless the protocol bends well to it,
and both end
Late reply due to mail server problems at my ISP...
Stuart Henderson wrote:
Depends what you're trying to do, but if it's e.g. throttling
p2p users, that's only going to be of limited help.
I haven't tried the approach yet and, as you, I'm in doubt about its
abitily to throttle p2p. However, t
On 6/13/06, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006/06/13 22:07, Nick Guenther wrote:
> What is the prefered method for NAT-traversal these days? The options
> I know are:
> UPnP
I suppose this one doesn't work unless the protocol bends well to it,
and both ends support it too, whic
On 2006/06/13 22:07, Nick Guenther wrote:
> What is the prefered method for NAT-traversal these days? The options
> I know are:
> UPnP
> a proxy
> having the in-kernel NAT code do the work itself
Look at how /usr/sbin/ftp-proxy works with anchors - it's a nice
hybrid, keeping L7 work out of the ke
On 6/13/06, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(warning, a bit long and might not be of very general interest,
but some of the points probably need getting down somewhere...)
executive summary: passing some protocols through NAT can be pretty hairy.
Of course this is quite like active-
(warning, a bit long and might not be of very general interest,
but some of the points probably need getting down somewhere...)
executive summary: passing some protocols through NAT can be pretty hairy.
On 2006/06/13 16:47, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >On 2006/06/13 14:58, D
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2006/06/13 14:58, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
That's cool! No worry, I guess your subject is way more interesting to many,
or no one is using NAT traversal or have any needs for it.
I don't know much about H.323, but for SIP draft-biggs-sip-nat has some
useful information,
On 2006/06/13 14:58, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> That's cool! No worry, I guess your subject is way more interesting to many,
> or no one is using NAT traversal or have any needs for it.
I don't know much about H.323, but for SIP draft-biggs-sip-nat has some
useful information, care needs to be taken
Martin Toft wrote:
To Daniel Quellet: Sorry for disturbing the topic of your thread.
That's cool! No worry, I guess your subject is way more interesting to
many, or no one is using NAT traversal or have any needs for it.
That's fair game. (;>
Daniel
On 2006/06/13 08:26, Jeff Quast wrote:
> On 6/13/06, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 2006/06/13 12:26, Martin Toft wrote:
> > > Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote:
> > > >Maybe a better-designed application wouldn't have to make use of such a
> > > >clusterbag of ports in the first
On 6/13/06, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2006/06/13 12:26, Martin Toft wrote:
> > Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote:
> > >Maybe a better-designed application wouldn't have to make use of such a
> > >clusterbag of ports in the first place?
> >
> > The ports do not belong to a single
On 2006/06/13 12:26, Martin Toft wrote:
> Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote:
> >Maybe a better-designed application wouldn't have to make use of such a
> >clusterbag of ports in the first place?
>
> The ports do not belong to a single application. I operate a gateway and
> want to give high priority to
Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote:
Maybe a better-designed application wouldn't have to make use of such a
clusterbag of ports in the first place?
The ports do not belong to a single application. I operate a gateway and
want to give high priority to legitimate protocols and low priority to
everythi
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Until recently I also pictured pf as feature complete. However, after
> having had hands-on experience with writing a rule set with special
> queueing of traffic directed to a (relative high) number of
> unsucceeding
> port numbers, I am annoyed with the limited table
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Looking in the archive, looks like PF is view as feature complete and
really I can't think of anything I can't do with it except nat traversal
in VoIP setup.
Maybe a bit off topic, but it immediately popped up in my head...
Until recently I also pictured pf as feature co
Looking in the archive, looks like PF is view as feature complete and
really I can't think of anything I can't do with it except nat traversal
in VoIP setup.
Would it be possible to consider the addition of this may be?
Just curious?
Best,
Daniel
16 matches
Mail list logo
