| 1 | | To my experience, router and server TCP/IP implementations do not check for possible conflicts when updating the ARP table, which is essential. Clients on the other hand typically show a warning and deny the setting if a TCP/IP address is already in use, for instance. Using the same LIFO logic, I would expect that starting a virtual machine with a conflicting port forwarding rule simply overwrites the existing rule, or should block the NAT rule |
| | 1 | To my experience, router and server TCP/IP implementations do not check for possible conflicts when updating the ARP table, which is essential. Clients on the other hand typically show a warning and deny the setting if a TCP/IP address is already in use, for instance. Using the same LIFO logic, I would expect that starting a virtual machine with a conflicting port forwarding rule simply overwrites the existing rule, or should block the NAT rule, but informing the user about the problem. |
