Re: [SAFE] Addressing nested NAT issues for STUN control
Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca> Wed, 31 October 2007 12:36 UTC
Return-path: <safe-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1InCoL-0000YG-BD; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:36:41 -0400
Received: from safe by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1InCoK-0000YA-C1 for safe-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:36:40 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1InCoE-0000W8-ET for safe@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:36:34 -0400
Received: from mail5.primus.ca ([216.254.141.172] helo=mail-05.primus.ca) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1InCo6-0002lT-A7 for safe@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:36:32 -0400
Received: from [216.13.42.68] (helo=[10.10.80.124]) by mail-05.primus.ca with esmtpa (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <philip_matthews@magma.ca>) id 1InCnK-0005ts-1J; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:35:38 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4721A04D.8040008@ericsson.com>
References: <47209D16.7010902@ericsson.com> <092101c81740$7125fd40$c4f0200a@cisco.com> <47219865.9000103@ericsson.com> <135e01c817a5$b46093d0$c4f0200a@cisco.com> <4721A04D.8040008@ericsson.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <5C470B4E-7832-4912-89C4-034807E668FE@magma.ca>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca>
Subject: Re: [SAFE] Addressing nested NAT issues for STUN control
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:36:47 -0400
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Authenticated: philip_matthews@magma.ca - ([10.10.80.124]) [216.13.42.68]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Cc: safe@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: safe@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Self-Address Fixing Evolution <safe.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/safe>, <mailto:safe-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/safe>
List-Post: <mailto:safe@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:safe-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/safe>, <mailto:safe-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: safe-bounces@ietf.org
On 26-Oct-07, at 04:07 , Magnus Westerlund wrote: > > I am worried that NATs that hand out overlapping addresses will be > fairly common. Most home NATs or modems seem to use 192.168.1.1/26 as > default range to hand out and those will easily be nested. I think this is a hard question to answer without solid experimental evidence. (As antidotal evidence, my home Internet access is through four levels of NAT -- two in my house and two from my ISP, and I (at least) did nothing to avoid IP address overlap.) - Philip _______________________________________________ SAFE mailing list SAFE@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/safe
- [SAFE] Addressing nested NAT issues for STUN cont… Magnus Westerlund
- RE: [SAFE] Addressing nested NAT issues for STUN … Dan Wing
- Re: [SAFE] Addressing nested NAT issues for STUN … Magnus Westerlund
- RE: [SAFE] Addressing nested NAT issues for STUN … Dan Wing
- Re: [SAFE] Addressing nested NAT issues for STUN … Magnus Westerlund
- RE: [SAFE] Addressing nested NAT issues for STUN … Dan Wing
- Re: [SAFE] Addressing nested NAT issues for STUN … Rémi Denis-Courmont
- Re: [SAFE] Addressing nested NAT issues for STUN … Philip Matthews