Subject: RE: stupid nat tricks (was Re: UPNP )

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:25:48 -0700

] Michel Py wrote:
] But what would be _really_ cool is if you could do this:
] Server1: 192.168.1.10:80 <-> x.y.z.t:80
] Server2: 192.168.1.11:80 <-> x.y.z.t:80
] Server3: 192.168.1.12:80 <-> x.y.z.t:80
] ** and ** have the UPNP box select the proper NAT association
] based on the requests.

> Keith Moore wrote:
> no, that would be *really* ugly.  because then you'd expect the
> NAT box to know how to intercept every application you'd want
> to use, despite the fact that those applications are evolving
> and the set of those apps is changing constantly. so you'd have
> to upgrade your NAT every time you upgraded installed a new app.

What's the difference with the way it already is? The ALG component does
need to know about the app already.

Michel.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:27:03 -0400

> What's the difference with the way it already is? The ALG component
> does need to know about the app already.

only for those apps that are NAT-sensitive.

what you propose would make every app NAT-sensitive, and increase the
rate of failures due to intermediaries that intercept protocol
interactions and botch them.