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!news.vbc.net!garlic.com!news.scruz.net!kithrup.com!news.Stanford.EDU!agate!conviction.CS.Berkeley.EDU!bmah From: bmah@conviction.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Bruce A. Mah) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: NAT (was Re: IP Masquerading in user PPP?) Date: 16 Jul 1996 03:46:51 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 37 Message-ID: <4sf3bb$qgg@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960708224558.170A-100000@darkstar> <4s1fb8$dj@anorak.coverform.lan> <4s47b4$oh3@cronkite.cisco.com> <4s8dfj$p4o@agate.berkeley.edu> <4sej2c$9jp@cronkite.cisco.com> Reply-To: bmah@CS.Berkeley.EDU NNTP-Posting-Host: conviction.cs.berkeley.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Tim Iverson (iverson@cisco.com) wrote: > 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. Hmmm again. I am not 100% sure how this would work, being woefully ignorant of the mechanics of LKMs. The aesthetics of this still gives me creepy-crawlies, but there are other people in the FreeBSD world much more qualified than me to express the problems concretely. (After participating in a discussion of this issue, I've also come to the conclusion there's some religion involved, too.) > |(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! It sounds to me like this is a pretty strong argument for: 1. SOCKS, which (as I understand things) puts everything up in userland. 2. Switching ISPs in favor of someone (if they exist) who has a more sensible billing structure. :-) Bruce. -- Bruce A. Mah Graduate Student bmah@CS.Berkeley.EDU Tenet Group, Computer Science Division University of California at Berkeley