Matthew Toseland wrote: >> It looks like about 70% of deployed NATs are full cone, so 81% of > > If that is true, then things are a lot easier than I had thought. Linux > for example doesn't normally do full cone. It is the same with UDP as > with TCP?
It seems to be slightly worse for TCP - see the brynosaurus link in my other email. Linux and BSD software NATs are some of the worst to be behind, but hopefully we can rely on Linux and BSD users to know how to forward a port. Cheers, Michael
