🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:03:09 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
<bbbl67@nospam.yahoo.com.spam> wrote:

>"Peter Kirby" <peter.news@aworld.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:MPG.165c6c7b20e9b93c9896f2@news.demon.co.uk...
>> I noticed this recently in iptraf. I don't know what game it is but it
>> uses UDP and packets go from port 27005 to port 27005. This means that
>> on any NAT based network I believe only 1 person could connect and play
>> at once. That is unless the server has some fallback measure which uses
>> a different port number, or allows the remote port to be different that
>> the server port.
>
>A NAT firewall/router should still able to track which packets go to which
>machines, simply with the combination of incoming and outgoing port numbers
>and their IP addresses. It is simply a matter of making the NAT software
>smarter and able to track more things in its tables.

I think Peter was aware of that, If you read Peter's post again, I
think you'll see he has considered that. In his example, both the
source and destination port numbers appear to be fixed. If the game
won't allow the source port to be altered, then you can't sNAT it to a
different port to support multiple simultaneous 'connections'[1].

[1] I put single quotes here as UDP is connectionless, so the only
connection is the state maintained by each end-point and the UDP
'connection' tracking state in the NAT router.

-- 
Ian James Abbott (a.k.a. "Abbo") <ian@abbott.org>
"Is there any tea on this spaceship?"
 -- Arthur Dent, "The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
Microsoft Passport License: "ALL YOUR FILE ARE BELONG TO US!!!!!"