[159819] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Simon Perreault)
Wed Jan 23 08:31:58 2013
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:32:30 +0100
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWf6Xk5aN=xPfpveSWoQ1B+iHsZcG++o7Bwoix9wA0eag@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Le 2013-01-23 14:22, William Herrin a écrit :
> I thought this was desirable behavior for a CGN since effective port
> prediction facilitates p2p nat traversal?
No. NAT traversal using port prediction is a Worst Current Practice.
Simon
