Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 01:02:56 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, "" <net@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Does natd(8) really need to see _all_ packets? Message-ID: <20030206010219.D33262-100000@patrocles.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <200302041903.03437.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> References: <200302040027.30781@aldan> <200302041142.28554.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <1044402261.16309.8.camel@salty.rapid.stbernard.com> <200302041903.03437.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > = I'm glad you've hit upon a solution that is acceptable. How 'bout > = writing it up for one of the online magazines? (Hint hint: Daemon > = News, for instance. ;^) It'll be good practice for writing the BSDCon > = paper you want to do as well, won't it? > > I'd rather improve the rc.firewall example script along the lines of > the example I posted. That way, noone would need to search Daemon News > to have an efficiently working NAT... Having to search the web-sites > smacks of Linux :-) > > -mi Er, well, you could always write an article about the process of updating rc.firewall. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030206010219.D33262-100000>