Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Re: removing application milestone

From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:44:23 +0300

On Tuesday 17 July 2007 11:25:19 ext David Barrett wrote:
> Whether you do your STUN operation immediately before the connection or you
> keep doing it continuously (as per the design I'm using), it comes up with
> the same results.  Except my results are readily available, and thus the
> connection establishes quicker.

Sorry not always. I have had reports of some NATs doing very weird/very stupid 
stuff with their ports mapping, e.g. when two clients behind the same NAT use 
the same internal port number.

It is also common sense that the fresher informations is usually more 
accurate.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

---

From: "David Barrett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:58:01 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rémi Denis-Courmont [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Re: removing application milestone
> 

Heh, will I'll totally agree with you about crazy NATs out there.  The other
day I was testing on a network whose NAT would duplicate every packet sent
out of it *3-7 times*.  That's right: send one UDP or TCP packet, and
several identical copies would arrive at the destination in a big clump.

So I agree with the theory that doing it right before the connection might
produce better results, and I'm eager to see that theory tested in practice.

-david