From owner-cvs-all Fri Jun 16 11:17:40 2000 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from jade.chc-chimes.com (jade.chc-chimes.com [216.28.46.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1CEA37BFEA; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:17:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from billf@jade.chc-chimes.com) Received: by jade.chc-chimes.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 8AA4E1C5C; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:17:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:17:32 -0400 From: Bill Fumerola To: Brian Somers Cc: Garrett Wollman , "Daniel C. Sobral" , Alfred Perlstein , Nate Williams , 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.h Message-ID: <20000616141732.E8523@jade.chc-chimes.com> References: <200006161737.SAA00670@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <200006161737.SAA00670@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org>; from brian@Awfulhak.org on Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 06:37:48PM +0100 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.3-STABLE i386 Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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. -- Bill Fumerola - Network Architect / Computer Horizons Corp - CVM e-mail: billf@chc-chimes.com / billf@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message