Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 14:33:11 -0500 From: Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> To: Matthias Apitz <guru@unixarea.de> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Joe Holden <lists@rewt.org.uk> Subject: Re: ppp(8) and inbound IP connections Message-ID: <518956F7.6030508@vangyzen.net> In-Reply-To: <20130507192433.GA1304@tiny.Sisis.de> References: <20130507181345.GA992@tiny.Sisis.de> <51894B52.2050903@rewt.org.uk> <20130507185623.GA1115@tiny.Sisis.de> <5189534D.4020605@vangyzen.net> <20130507192433.GA1304@tiny.Sisis.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05/07/2013 14:24, Matthias Apitz wrote: > El día Tuesday, May 07, 2013 a las 02:17:33PM -0500, Eric van Gyzen escribió: > >>> Ofc, the provider must NAT somehow my local addr behind some routable >>> valid IP addr, in our case 82.113.99.104; without this nothing would >>> come back, even when the 1st SYN was from my side; the question is, why >>> they do not manage the NAT table so any SYN to 82.113.99.104 is sent to >>> my ppp link; >>> >>> or if they do send it, and my ppp config is wrong? >> Most likely, multiple customers' local addresses are NATed to the same >> routable address, so the router can't know which customer to chose for a >> new incoming connection. De-NATing of incoming packets for existing >> sessions is done via per-connection state-tracking, which of course >> doesn't exist for a new incoming connection. > That is my understanding as well, but why they claim that they do > support incoming connections? Miscommunication, perhaps? Eric
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?518956F7.6030508>