On 12:53, Wed 22 Apr 09, Janne Johansson wrote: > Michiel van Baak wrote: >>>> I've searched around a bit and see there is something wrong (in general) >>>> with "double NAT" >>> I dont know where you got that info from, but as long as each NAT is >>> set up correctly, there isnt any difference in being NATed once or >>> five times. >> >> I have seen trouble with 'double nat' too many times in the voip world >> to even bother with it anymore. >> Ok, most of the times one of the nat devices was a DSL modem, and their >> implementation is,..... interesting. > > I might be dense, but you agree double NAT is bad as a concept, since > often one of the devices are broken? > That seems to be a weird assumption. Not that I like NAT anymore than > anyone else, but broken is broken regardless.
Thats why I said 'most' Voip setups where two openbsd machines are doing NAT also have trouble. Removing one NAT hop always fixes the issues. -- Michiel van Baak [email protected] http://michiel.vanbaak.eu GnuPG key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x71C946BD "Why is it drug addicts and computer aficionados are both called users?"
