Or perhaps to force the host to use an address pair that doesn't need
translation, given that such exists?
On Mar 23, 2009, at 5:56 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
On Mar 23, 2009, at 14:39, Fred Baker wrote:
The more appropriate case, called for in RFC 4787, might be to
recognize that this is about to happen and instead of changing the
source address, change the destination address. This results in the
target seeing a datagram from/to the ULA. One direction goes
through the DMZ, but the replies are direct.
That can work for UDP, in those applications that don't care so much
about source and destination addresses for matching session
endpoints, but it doesn't work for connection-oriented transports,
e.g. TCP, SCTP, DCCP, etc. For those transports, hairpinning
requires the NAT to translate both the source and destination
addresses.
--
james woodyatt <[email protected]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
