Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:31:43 +0200 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: pppd + natd (was: Re: some bugs in natd.8) Message-ID: <20030313163143.GB34380@sunbay.com> In-Reply-To: <20030313081343.A79544@FreeBSD.org> References: <20030313024936.A32285@FreeBSD.org> <20030313221709.Y4254@gamplex.bde.org> <20030313124939.GA11574@sunbay.com> <20030313054400.C32285@FreeBSD.org> <20030313135103.GA20081@sunbay.com> <20030313065546.D32285@FreeBSD.org> <20030313150528.GA28029@sunbay.com> <20030313072458.E32285@FreeBSD.org> <20030313154358.GB28029@sunbay.com> <20030313081343.A79544@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--A6N2fC+uXW/VQSAv Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:13:43AM -0800, Eivind Eklund wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 05:43:58PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 07:24:58AM -0800, Eivind Eklund wrote: > > [...] > > > > Okay, here's my question: what is/was so bad about pppd + natd? > > >=20 > > > Generating >10% of the total support load for FreeBSD on IRC is so bad > > > about it. And I can't give you a better answer than that, because I > > > haven't supported it in 3.5 years and do not remember what problems > > > people were having - and if it had been a single problem or two (as > > > you imply with your questions), I'd have SOLVED THOSE PROBLEMS rather > > > than going for the blanket. > > >=20 > > So you can't recall a single specific problem, other than saying they > > were. >=20 > There were no problems *per se* - there is nothing that inherently doesn't > work with the configuration. >=20 Fine, let's stick this then. > I could say some people had problems configuring divert sockets. >=20 Are they configurable? Also indistinguishable from the NIC case. > I could say some people had problems getting ipfw to work at all. >=20 Doesn't directly relate to the issue of not using pppd + natd. If you wanted to recommend ppp(8) over pppd(8), natd(8) manpage isn't the best place for it. Moreover, the latter doesn't even mention pppd(8). > I could say some people had problems with not having supplied > -dynamic to natd. >=20 So far, this is the only difference. :-) > I could say some people didn't discover the -n option to natd. >=20 And were running with -a? > I could say some people had problems writing the script for pppd. >=20 This is totally unrelated. > I could say some people had problems with their kernel > not containing the ppp device. >=20 Ditto. We're speaking about pppd + natd, not about pppd itself. > And I could wring my brain to find more examples. >=20 Real examples on the "pppd + natd", please. > However, I didn't see this as much of a point, because it does > NOT add to the overall point: There was a bunch of small problems that in > total resulted in the this configuration leading to a bunch of support. >=20 If pppd is considered harmful, it should be taken out of the base system. It has not been updated for quite long to deserve it, actually. Again, this is not directly related to the subject. > > Okay, then how about querying our current FreeBSD users about > > it? It's that simple: > >=20 > > Dear users of pppd(8) + natd(8), if there are any. Do you have/had > > any problems using this combination? I'd appreciate both successful > > and unfortunate reports, to improve documentation. >=20 > I don't believe you'll get any relevant responses to that. >=20 Will see. > Besides, I'm not interested. I know the problem is there, as I've seen > it. You don't believe me when I tell you that it is there - that's your > choice. This is not an issue I care enough about to spent more energy on. >=20 Times have changed, problems might be different nowadays. > And I'm not active enough that I feel I have any right to any form of vet= o. >=20 Thanks. I'm not against documenting "something", if I understand what this "something" should be. If people want pppd(8) over ppp(8) or mpd(8) for some reason, the only options to NAT they have are ipnat(8) and natd(8). You sounded like natd(8) should not be used on anything except NICs, this I strongly disagree to. I certainly do not for recommending ppp(8) over pppd(8), or for recommending "ppp -nat" over "ppp + natd", but the former does not belong to the natd(8) manpage, and the latter is documented there. Cheers, --=20 Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA, ru@sunbay.com Sunbay Software AG, ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age --A6N2fC+uXW/VQSAv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+cLJvUkv4P6juNwoRAvsCAJ9gMjwym9jgrFjEYSC+kADsd5ZJDgCfUsOy Atdg2F259IBRZNQoZal1M5Y= =kyUj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --A6N2fC+uXW/VQSAv-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030313163143.GB34380>