RE: [midcom] Port preservation

I was only providing an example, for the sake of answering a posted
question, of why a static one-to-one port mapping might be desired in a
NAT, not to justify why an application might expect a source port to be
a standard server port.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: midcom-admin@ietf.org [mailto:midcom-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rosenberg
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 11:44 PM
To: Chris@sip1.com
Cc: 'Cullen Jennings'; 'Yutaka Takeda'; 'Midcom'; stun@www.vovida.org
Subject: Re: [midcom] Port preservation

Christopher A. Martin wrote:

> Hi all,
> The only reason that I can think of, that may be a good reason, is to
> provide the appearance that a client is communicating directly with a
> server on a standard server port (for that professional, I'm a big
> organization look and feel). Some applications do check for this for
> paranoid security reasons, but they are less common.

For what application does the protocol expect the SOURCE port to be a 
standard server port? None that I can think of.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
midcom@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
midcom@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom