Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:17:07 +0100 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.ORG>, Nate Williams <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.h Message-ID: <200006162017.VAA02121@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com> of "Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:17:32 EDT." <20000616141732.E8523@jade.chc-chimes.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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....
> --
> Bill Fumerola - Network Architect / Computer Horizons Corp - CVM
> e-mail: billf@chc-chimes.com / billf@FreeBSD.org
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>; <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !
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?200006162017.VAA02121>