Subject: [Ietf-behave] Idealized UDP/TCP port bindings

From: "Dave Hudson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:16:04 -0800 (PST)

I can't recall having seen any discussion of this so I thought I'd ask
the question...

If I have a port mapping within a NAT where private address and port A:P
maps to a public address and port A':P' is there any advantage to having
the mapping of P -> P' be the same for both UDP and TCP?  (e.g. if I
have an private port 12345 which maps to a public port 9977 for UDP does
it help if 12345 also maps to 9977 for TCP as opposed to some other
mapping, say, 11111?).  I'm assuming here that the NAT exhibits endpoint
independent mapping.

Thanks,
Dave

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 08:47:16 -0800 (PST)

Hi Dave,

Good question. I dont know of any applications that mandate this behavior. I
dont believe, it should be required of NATs  to correlate the port bindings
between TCP and UDP.

cheers,
suresh

--- Dave Hudson <dhudson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-behave mailing list
> Ietf-behave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-behave
>