From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tobias DiPasquale Subject: Re: Nat types implemented by IPTABLES - STUN issue Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 20:19:43 -0500 Message-ID: <876ef97a05010517193799cae6@mail.gmail.com> References: <5bc4c45705010511286ee56a0d@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: Tobias DiPasquale Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: To: Leandro Melo de Sales , nf-devel In-Reply-To: <5bc4c45705010511286ee56a0d@mail.gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 16:28:42 -0300, Leandro Melo de Sales wrote: > I'm using an implementation for STUN (RFC 3489: > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3489.html) written in JAVA > (http://stun4j.dev.java.net/). > In this RFC, they describes some nats variations (see STUN RFC > chapter 5) some of them supported by STUN specification, like: Full > Cone, Restricted Cone, Port Restricted Cone and Symmetric. > So, I have a simple question for iptables developers: what types of > nat iptables supports? Symmetric only. -- [ Tobias DiPasquale ] 0x636f6465736c696e67657240676d61696c2e636f6d