Subject: (ngtrans) Shipworm

From: "Michael Cole" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 22:55:39 -0400

Dear Mr. Huitema,

Perhaps I should rephrase what I wrote the other day. I was probably a 
little tired when I was reading something else. I was mistaking the optimization 
for a plain cone NAT and a port restricted NAT.

1. Does the Shipworm Client and the Shipworm Server really need to 
distinguish between a port restricted NAT (NAT+firewall in the same program) and 
a plain cone NAT that is coupled to a firewall? It might help to include this 
scenario in the definition of a port restricted NAT - most port restrictions are 
deliberate anyways.

2. Could the optimization for a plain cone NAT be applied to a port 
restricted NAT by somehow sending the address of the Teredo Relay to the Teredo 
Client so that the client can tell the firewall to recognize Relay's address? 
(Modified version of 4.1.4)

--- Michael Cole

--- [email-masked] 

--- EarthLink: It's your Internet.