From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Oct 17 15:33:28 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from europe.std.com (europe-e.std.com [192.74.137.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD86B14DFD for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 15:33:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lowell@world.std.com) Received: from world.std.com (lowell@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA11417 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 18:33:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from lowell@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA23998; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 18:33:24 -0400 (EDT) To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD as a dedicated network router? References: <3807AB5B.29DEC712@ndsu.nodak.edu> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 17 Oct 1999 18:33:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: Peter Schultz's message of Fri, 15 Oct 1999 17:31:56 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 16 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Peter Schultz writes: > It is our duty to warn you that, even when FreeBSD is configured in this > way, it does not completely comply with the Internet standard > requirements for routers; however, it comes close enough for ordinary > usage. > --------------------- > > What does this mean... what is the problem? Is it something to be > concerned about? Several of us wrote up comments on this the last time someone asked, within the last six months. The mailing list archives should have those discussions. [But the short version is: if you haven't already read RFC 1918, FreeBSD may well be *better* for your purposes than a completely compliant router. But I'd still recommend reading it.] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message