Well, that is the boundary:
60999 -- OK
61000 -- FAIL
What is this with NAT and dynamic/private ports?
I would really like to track this one down; but, where to start?
What do you think?
Ray Olszewski wrote:
>
> >From the numbers you report, I wonder if the NAT'ing stuff in the kernel,
> which uses a high block of ports, somehow conflicts with the port-forwarding
> stuff.
>
> I'd suggest throwing some more pebbles to see experimentally where the line
> is, trying the hypothesis that it's the NAT range (which I think starts
> around 61000; do you recall the exact starting value?) that is the problem.
>
> Only a guess, though.
>
> >> On Thursday 07 February 2002 00:26, Michael D. Schleif wrote:
> >> > Is there some _maximum_ port that can be port forwarded?
> >> >
> >> > This fails:
> >> > INTERN_SERVERS="tcp_${EXTERN_IP}_65456_${LOKI}_www"
> >> >
> >> > This succeeds:
> >> > INTERN_SERVERS="tcp_${EXTERN_IP}_6543_${LOKI}_www"
> >> >
> >> > I have scoured /etc/ipfilter.conf, /etc/network.conf and man ipmasqadm;
> >> > but, I cannot find this limitation.
--
Best Regards,
mds
mds resource
888.250.3987
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we
think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
_______________________________________________
Leaf-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
