David Schwartz wrote: > "Ulisses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>that is a flaw in the protocol design. >> >>heh, people doing NAT will not agree with you for sure :-) > > > Actually, quite the reverse. It is in the presence of NAT that it > becomes so important to have some unique identifier that tells you who sent > you the packet that is independent of the UDP source address of the packet > you received. >
I agree with Dave here, NAT should do the right thing and not violate the packet or UDP header. Danny > DS > > > _______________________________________________ > questions mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions > _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
