*BSD News Article 73843


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