NAT444 or ?

Simon Perreault simon.perreault at
Wed Sep 7 21:29:16 UTC 2011

David Israel wrote, on 09/07/2011 04:21 PM:
> In theory, this
> particular performance problem should only arise when the NAT gear insists on a
> unique port per session (which is common, but unnecessary)

What you're describing is known as "endpoint-independent mapping" behaviour. It
is good for not breaking applications, not so good for scalability. RFC 4787
section 4.1 makes it a MUST.

DTN made easy, lean, and smart -->
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        -->
STUN/TURN server               -->

More information about the NANOG mailing list