On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 15:36 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 14:57 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Try setting up for voice over IP or certain gaming to more than one computer. No problem - I have a number of Linksys/Cisco SPA phones hooked up from peoples home offices to our central telephone server. The phone is usually sat behind a NAT'ing router. This has been working very well for at least two years now. Of course, I run a stun daemon. Emphasis: "Of course, I run a stun daemon." Therefore: problem eliminated. Try using ssh to multiple computers, without changing port numbers. I do that every day from my workstation. (which is behind a NAT setup). The issue is the reverse. Yeah, I thought that mnight be it - well, to me, it also seems a
Adam Tauno Williams wrote: little contrived. When I need external ssh access to something on my NAT'ed network, I ssh to the NAT'ing gateway, and from there to whatever I The basis of your argument is that NAT is *simple*. I *do* think NAT is simple, but that's not the basis of my argument. I'm merely arguing against the suggestion that "NAT is broken in a number of ways"
It is exactly "broken in a number of ways". <http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1627.html> <http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/what-nats-break.html>
when the problems mentioned turn out to be either contrived or non-problems.
So everything that doesn't specifically apply to your use-case is "contrived"? Do you enjoy double-SSH-ing? Why bother? Wouldn't it be nice not to have to futz with port-forwards? I own a 1919 Model-T Ford. I can crank-start it or use the electric starter. I always use the electric starter. Why? Its easier, and safer [just like IPv6]. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org