Re: Curious on NAT traversal possibility on PF

[Jeff Quast]

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 application. I operate a gateway and
> > want to give high priority to legitimate protocols and low priority to
> > everything else. At the moment I have chosen this long list of
> > "legitimate" ports:
>
> Non-legitimate apps will also use these ports. You can't e.g. replicate
> what ellacoya boxes do just using PF.
>
>
Maybe this can be shortened to the classical idea of ports <1024 being
authoratative internet daemons,
< 1024 high priority
> 1024 low priority, except...