On Saturday, July 08, 2006 01:19:32 AM -0400 Ethan Tira-Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, the trouble I didn't originally foresee is that the AFS client running on the NAT box is running on the public network, and gets direct access without consulting the NAT. (or does it?) So if a machine on the private network tries to use the same port, I'm not sure if the NAT server can know that another process on the machine is already using that port, particularly with UDP (with TCP, it could figure out that it can't bind to the port, but with UDP being stateless, it might not know there's another process also using the port...?)
You are either worrying too much, or grasping at straws to try to explain a problem you're seeing but not telling us about. There is not a "NAT server" process; packet forwarding and address translation are done in the network stack. The right thing happens, unless you've tried hard to break it.
If you're seeing some actual problem and trying to figure out what's causing it, I suggest describing the problem to the list, rather than asking if your guess is right.
-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sr. Research Systems Programmer School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
