Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 19:25:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Tony Kimball <alk@Think.COM> To: bmah@cs.berkeley.edu Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ip masquerading Message-ID: <199605210025.TAA18598@compound.Think.COM> In-Reply-To: <199605210010.RAA11094@premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU> (bmah@cs.berkeley.edu)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > From the masquerade host. ICMP works fine, to the network > > interface of the *system*. UDP is not a host requirement. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ To Tony: Are you saying that just because FTP, telnet, and Web don't run over UDP it's not important? I respectfully disagree. I'm meaning that lack of support for UDP would not make a masquerade scheme violate host requirements. Frankly I haven't clue one about how to implement UDP masquerade, never having so much as glanced at the problem. To clarify another point: I do not advocate a linux-style implementation of masquerade. I'm just too ignorant of the alternatives to make a specific proposal, and too enthusiastically supportive of the functional goal to keep my mouth shut. A dangerous combination. TCP is *more* important the UDP, though, for the preponderance of "customers", that much seems obvious. UDP is second-order. //alk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605210025.TAA18598>