On 9/25/2019 2:57 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:49:36 -0400, David Storrs wrote: > 1) Is it possible that there is a bug in the underlying C code? It's always possible. But if I understand the original problem, it seems unlikely that a bug manages to exactly reconstruct a port number that has been replaced in a UDP packet by a NAT.
The NAT [or last router] port will be in the IP header, not the UDP header - the UDP header contains the address:port of the remote client. AFAIK, the IP (level 3) information is not passed up to the application by the network stack when the application is using a level 4 protocol: UDP or TCP.
George -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/0059b3b1-9a79-69a5-db60-697cb6a5e837%40comcast.net.
