Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mira.net.au!vic.news.telstra.net!act.news.telstra.net!psgrain!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!usenet.cisco.com!iverson From: iverson@cisco.com (Tim Iverson) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: NAT (was Re: IP Masquerading in user PPP?) Date: 15 Jul 1996 23:09:00 GMT Organization: cisco Lines: 31 Message-ID: <4sej2c$9jp@cronkite.cisco.com> References: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960708224558.170A-100000@darkstar> <4s1fb8$dj@anorak.coverform.lan> <4s47b4$oh3@cronkite.cisco.com> <4s8dfj$p4o@agate.berkeley.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: rottweiler.cisco.com In article <4s8dfj$p4o@agate.berkeley.edu>, Bruce A. Mah <bmah@CS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote: |Tim Iverson (iverson@cisco.com) wrote: |> Noooooooo, please not there! ;-) If you do it, please put this into the |> TCP/IP stack. If you just put it into PPP, only users of that particular |> PPP flavor can use it. | |Noooooooo, please not there either! :-) | |Putting masquerading in the stack means putting all of the various little |hacks necessary to make applications work in the kernel. Aside from the |aesthetic issues, it means you get to rebuild your kernel anytime you want |to support a new application that needs special handling. Hmmm. I think we have different definitions of "in the kernel". I was thinking of a couple of hooks to an LKM; ie. the code would conceptually occupy the proper spot in the TCP/IP stack, but would not be part of the main kernel. Most people don't need NAT for one, and (as you said) support for ugly new IP-embedded protocols would require a kernel rebuild. |(I also happen to fall into the "masquerading is evil" camp, but I |figure you probably don't want to hear that argument...) Oh, I agree in principle -- I don't like putting hacks into code for non-technological reasons. In this case, my need for it is entirely due to the artificially created billing structure of my ISP. IMHO, free versus $250/mo. is a pretty strong argument for NAT! - Tim Iverson iverson@lionheart.com