Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:06:36 +0900 (JST) From: SUMIKAWA Munechika <sumikawa@ebina.hitachi.co.jp> To: nsayer@quack.kfu.com Cc: developers@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, sumikawa@ebina.hitachi.co.jp Subject: Re: Should I merge KAME's NATPT? Message-ID: <20011212.110636.65197733.sumikawa@ebina.hitachi.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <3C16A5DF.8020005@kfu.com> References: <3C16A5DF.8020005@kfu.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nick, > I asked a couple days ago on -net and heard nothing back, but I really > don't want to step on anyone's toes. > > I have successfully merged NATPT from KAME's latest snapshot. It was so > easy I am a bit surprised no one has done it already. It just drops > right in with a slight merge to ip_input.c, ip_proto.c and ip6_input.c, > all of > which is #ifdef NATPT protected. It works perfectly, so far as I can tell. > > I actually merged it into -stable, but I can't possibly imagine that it > wouldn't be just as easy to drop into -current. KAME NATPT is still under developing. It's unstable and cannot not translate all type of packets yet, for example it cannot handle IPv4 fragmented packet with DF bit now. Moreover there is possibility that its API might changes. We need to provide backward compatibility when the API is changed. I think -current merging need more couple of months. --- Munechika SUMIKAWA @ KAME Project / FreeBSD.org 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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011212.110636.65197733.sumikawa>