Re: To address or NAT to address?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: To address or NAT to address?

To: Dan Kohn <dan at teledesic.com>
Subject: Re: To address or NAT to address?
From: Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 09:14:37 -0500
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Dec 1999 17:30:03 PST." <25D0C66E6D25D311B2AC0008C7913EE0411E44@tdmail2.teledesic.com>
Sender: moore at cs.utk.edu

> Specific processes can be and almost always are identified by a port number.

uh, no.  IP address + port number often works, but port number alone
never works.   and FQDN + port number doesn't work nearly as well
as IP address + port number, because there are too many cases
where there are multiple IP addresses associated with an FQDN.

References:
- RE: To address or NAT to address?
  - From: Dan Kohn

Prev by Date: [no subject]
Next by Date: Re: Crypto Advocate Under FBI Investigation (For Treason)
Previous by thread: RE: To address or NAT to address?
Next by thread: Re: To address or NAT to address?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.