I see - yes that can happen with mobile providers or with ISPs who do NAT444. Didn't understand this part in your reply "So a small port range may be a good idea if you are planning to have a huge amout of connections." Are you referring to the local ephemeral port range on the server machine?
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Steve Ulrich <[email protected]>wrote: > > [email protected] wrote > > > > Thanks! that clarifies things.. I guess I would run in to this 64k > > limit only when in my tests I run the clients and the MINA server on > > the same machine. > > There may be a catch if your clients are mobiles or within another NAT-ed > network. Most mobile providers hide their users behind NAT-gateways, so the > connecting "client IP" is the gateway of the provider. Depending on the > logic and number of routers/router IPs, it may be a problem or not. > We had some problems with mobile providers at argentinia, where the > oversimplified logic (port= ++lastport) of the gateway caused some trouble > with a few hundreds of devices. That was some years ago and they managed to > solve it after some time. > So a small port range may be a good idea if you are planning to have a > huge amout of connections. > > regards > > Steve > > >
