* does NAT based on iptables support TCP hole punch?
@ 2009-06-11 3:42 Tony Wan
2009-06-11 4:57 ` Stephen Hemminger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Tony Wan @ 2009-06-11 3:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netfilter-devel
Hi all,
It's said that TCP hole punch does not work if both endpoints come
from 2 sub-networks, whose NAT are both implemented by iptables. I
just want to make sure whether this is true. If so, what type of nat
can iptables work as? full-cone, restricted, port restricted, or
symmetric?
Sorry if it's not appropriate to ask such a question here. Thanks in advance.
--
Best regards,
Tony Wan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: does NAT based on iptables support TCP hole punch?
2009-06-11 3:42 does NAT based on iptables support TCP hole punch? Tony Wan
@ 2009-06-11 4:57 ` Stephen Hemminger
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2009-06-11 4:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tony Wan; +Cc: netfilter-devel
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:42:44 +0800
Tony Wan <visual2me@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It's said that TCP hole punch does not work if both endpoints come
> from 2 sub-networks, whose NAT are both implemented by iptables. I
> just want to make sure whether this is true. If so, what type of nat
> can iptables work as? full-cone, restricted, port restricted, or
> symmetric?
>
> Sorry if it's not appropriate to ask such a question here. Thanks in advance.
You might want to look up STUNT which uses an intermediary to open the NAT tunnel.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-06-11 4:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-06-11 3:42 does NAT based on iptables support TCP hole punch? Tony Wan
2009-06-11 4:57 ` Stephen Hemminger
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).