Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 08 Apr 2001 18:10:52 +0900
From:      itojun@iijlab.net
To:        Gunther Schadow <gunther@aurora.regenstrief.org>
Cc:        snap-users@kame.net, users@ipv6.org, net@freebsd.org, ipfw@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Consolidating KAME SPD rules and IPFW / IPfilter.
Message-ID:  <24338.986721052@coconut.itojun.org>
In-Reply-To: gunther's message of Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:10:46 GMT. <3ACFF2D6.13219EAB@aurora.regenstrief.org>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help

>To which I can only say that in IPv4 world and VPN, NAT is almost
>mandatory. For me, using NAT allows me to set up VPN specific 
>routing for my special project within a corporate network without
>bothering the network administrator with using FreeBSD instead of
>their Cisco stuff for routing. FreeBSD/KAME needs NAT for allowing
>it to being used in production environments today. NAT comes with
>IPFW, which is where the circle closes.

	as mentioned before, there was an discussion about one of the freebsd
	mailing lists.  there was a proposed patch just like below
	(the following patch works only for the latest KAME tree, not for
	FreeBSD tree).
http://www.kame.net/dev/cvsweb.cgi/kame/freebsd4/sys/netinet/ip_input.c.diff?r1=1.16&r2=1.17

	the patch tries to do the following, i have no environment to test.
	http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/network/ipsec/#ipf-interaction

itojun

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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?24338.986721052>