Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
Time to put the crack pipe down I guess. I seem to remember some combination of "NAT, UDP, and Server" that didn't work....*sigh* -Mark Derek Atkins wrote: > Mark Komarinski <mkomarinski at valinux.com> writes: > > >>Cable modem routers (or any NAT filter) can not forward UDP packets. >>There are two solutions: >> > > Um, you are HORRIBLY confused. Of course you can forward UDP through a > NAT. Otherwise not even DNS would work! There are two main issues > with UDP through NAT: > > 1) protocols that include source/dest port numbers _within_ > the protocol (ala Kerberos/Zephyr/etc.) will fail. > > 2) protocols that require server callbacks (ala AFS) require > you to increase the NAT timeout. > > But besides that, there is no reason UDP cannot flow through NAT (I do > it almost every day!) > > >><security> >>you really don't want to be running NFS over the Internet. It's bad. >>It's insecure, anyone can read it, blah blah. >></security> >> > > This I agree with whole-heartedly. I'd really suggest you look into > more secure network file systems. Take a look at www.openafs.org! > > >>-Mark >> > > -derek > > -- Mark Komarinski - Senior Systems Engineer - VA Linux Systems (cell) 978-697-2228 (email) mkomarinski at valinux.com "Have one day pleasant" - Babelfish - Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with "subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |