Danny Mayer wrote:
David Woolley wrote:
For several years now, it has been almost essential that it does respond
to client requests from other ports, because of network address translation.
I hope NAT does not REQUIRE different port numbers.
Danny
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
NAT maps public address + port to (RFC 1918) private address + port. So
a system with an RFC 1918 address 192.168.1.20 will send an NTP packet
from port 123 and the NAT router will map it to 68.44.203.111 port
xxxxx. When you reply to 68.44.203.111 port xxxxx the router knows to
map it to 192.168.1.20 port 123.
So yes, in a sense, NAT does require "different" port numbers. Speaking
as one of the many behind a NAT router/firewall it all seems to work,
however improbable it might seem.
If IP V6 ever gets off the ground, there will be enough addresses to go
around and this subterfuge will no longer be necessary. IP V6 does not
appear to be going anywhere in a hurry though! About three years ago,
my then boss (manager of network services) saw me answer "Yes" to the IP
V6 support question asked by Solaris Installation and screamed "No!".
I had to explain to him that the box would still speak IP V4 to anyone
who wanted to talk to it using V4 and could speak IP V6 to anyone who
wanted to use it. My little LinkSys Router hasn't a clue about IP V6.
Comcast is IP V4. IP V6 may be coming but it's by no means here yet!!!
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
