Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:03:34 +0100 From: Greg Hennessy <Greg.Hennessy@nviz.net> To: Angelo Turetta <aturetta@commit.it> Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GRE Limitation Message-ID: <48832996.4060300@nviz.net> In-Reply-To: <4881CABB.7080907@commit.it> References: <047001c8e87d$8078b710$816a2530$@com><d64aa1760807172036u7f41fc7ctcc8563dd75372211@mail.gmail.com><048f01c8e889$160fffd0$422fff70$@com> <d64aa1760807172105n29c9cb67k757d3ea38b3a5958@mail.gmail.com> <39DC135F7F0571489196E0B6F5D58B4A03B45EED@MWBEXCH.mweb.com> <4881CABB.7080907@commit.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Angelo Turetta wrote: > Rudi Kramer - MWEB wrote: >> I had the same issue and when I checked with our ms-admin team they said >> it was a Microsoft limitation. > > Quite the opposite. Since Windows2000 MS introduced, or started using, > a CallID in the GRE header. Indeed. > > Remember, many-to-one NAT has only become widely used/mandatory in > recent years, I wouldn't say that recent, trying to get address space out of RIPE for the past decade is like pulling teeth. > I remember getting a full ClassC subnet from my first provider > (128Kbps, ca. 1995-1996) without even asking. Those were the days, I can remember having a conversation with Pipex here in the UK circa 1994 where their account manager asked if a /24 would be enough for the 64k line I was connecting. His assured me that they recommended at least 2 and that 4 * /24s wouldn't be a problem. Considering I was plumbing connectivity using SCO and the TIS FWTK at the time, a /29 was overkill. Regards Greg > > Angelo Turetta > Modena - Italy > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pf-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48832996.4060300>