In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Richard B. Gilbert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Per Hedeland wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Richard
>> B. Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> Well, it doesn't require *different* port numbers (not sure what you
>> mean with the quotes), i.e. it's perfectly possible (and generally
>> desirable IMHO) for xxxxx to be 123 - as long as there is only one
>> internal address sending from 123. YMMV depending on the capabilities of
>> your NAT device of course, but it's certainly technically possible, and
>> trivial to do with something like ipfilter on a *nix box.
>
>If there is only one system using NTP through the router/firewall, you
>are correct; port 123 can and probably will be used.
Yes, that's what I think I said:-) ("as long as...").
--Per Hedeland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
