4 ms·
Go and find the academic survey papers of NAT behaviours. They list what I stated, the common case is EIM+EIF. However, continue with your belief...
by dfawcus 2y ago
Go and find the academic survey papers of NAT behaviours.
They list what I stated, the common case is EIM+EIF.
However, continue with your belief...
- citrin_ru 2y agoI know how NAT works under FreeBSD and it doesn’t ignore remote IP/port. Would be surprised if Linux differs in this regard and most home router are based on Linux. I know little about CGNAT but one shouldn’t trust ISP with protection from unwanted connection and there is almost always a home router with one more NAT even if ISP uses CGNAT.
- throw0101a 2y ago> EIM+EIF This is a new and unfamiliar term/acronym to me. It seems to be from RFC 7857, "Updates to Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements": * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7857 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7857 People may be more familiar with the various "cone" NAT variation definitions: * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3489#section-5 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3489#section-5
- dfawcus 2y agoDespite working in the industry, I always found the "cone" terms for NAT confusing, and difficult to remember. So once the BEHAVE terms came out, I adopted them, as they were (at least to me) more obvious. They're also more flexible in that they can describe real behaviours which can not be mapped to "cone" terms.