Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 12:28:09 +1000 (EST) From: Darren Reed <darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au> To: brian@Awfulhak.org (Brian Somers) Cc: billf@chc-chimes.com, brian@Awfulhak.org, wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu, dcs@newsguy.com, alfred@FreeBSD.org, nate@yogotech.com, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, brian@hak.lan.awfulhak.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern uipc_socket.c uipc_socket2.c src/sys/sys socket. Message-ID: <200006170228.MAA14959@avalon.reed.wattle.id.au> In-Reply-To: <200006162017.VAA02121@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> from Brian Somers at "Jun 16, 0 09:17:07 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In some email I received from Brian Somers, sie wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 06:37:48PM +0100, Brian Somers wrote: > > > > > > > If natd had been written in the kernel (which no-one would have objected > > > > > to), you would have the exact above scenario. > > > > > > > > I would have, strenuously. > > > > > > Is there a big difference between natd and ipnat ? Or do you object > > > to ipnat ? > > > > I was going to mention that, but I don't use ipfilter and hadn't looked > > to see how application specific ipnat gets. > > I'm no expert with ipnat either - it may be ``cleaner'' than libalias > in that it may avoid protocol-specific knowledge (I think you need a > plug-in to do active ftp properly for example, and all the other > protocols have to be done via a proxy), but then you can argue that > NATing is a disgusting hak anyway.... It sure is :-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006170228.MAA14959>