[OpenAFS] Re: UDP timeouts

Jeffrey Altman jaltman@secure-endpoints.com
Mon, 09 May 2011 11:42:24 -0400


This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigCB72BA559F235D8CDFF76A11
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 5/9/2011 11:25 AM, Andrew Deason wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2011 11:03:42 -0400
> Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> wrote:
>=20
>> The port number used is irrelevant.  The question is whether the
>> firewall or NAT keeps the port open or not.  There is no guarantee
>> that a client will use port 7001 either.  That is simply the standard
>> port.
>=20
> Yes, but it seems unlikely that a client that is using 7001 would need
> keepalives to keep a port mapping active. It's not perfect, but I was
> just trying to think of a way of reducing the potentially huge increase=

> in unnecessary traffic (and CheckHost_r delays) for sites that don't
> have any NAT clients and don't care.

Most NATs assign the requested port on a first come first serve basis.

Firewalls that only open ports in response to outgoing traffic will also
require this functionality.



--------------enigCB72BA559F235D8CDFF76A11
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNyAtgAAoJENxm1CNJffh4hXAIAJLf4L8/fLY4c0G7ug4arsj5
HB/aP2pREj9+xIBlGyW7TotC+TczyiQoyHbhucyX49WZdX5JKqPdbf7bgoWvNRcC
RsQZn3S1hdreGFQ1WglIt/ROkDc8exQHAuR4Xkla91qfDJPeH1phAMRL41xFlNRX
UnmBF+nKuEkMSpNiSIw3N+TqrXAyqQthRV638oMG38Io/tNdcZ1g9+4KpAshm6n7
u4lIr+JjpUIov1jBiSe5Q9xSomfqlCNyON5pVpdaOhLwtYpA5AF8Co80NQS0SOjT
DZvbtzJOR7QkKHMZporuLPaIWereBqb1PfMR8WTfspn1nEe0TcL2Ot5CNvIh810=
=koln
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigCB72BA559F235D8CDFF76A11--