From owner-freebsd-current Sun Aug 22 16:15:36 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7702B155D9 for ; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 16:15:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) Received: from localhost (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03847; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 16:14:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) To: Brian Somers Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: libalias or libnat. Vote ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 23 Aug 1999 00:02:16 BST." <199908222302.AAA45172@keep.lan.Awfulhak.org> Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 16:14:54 -0700 Message-ID: <3843.935363694@localhost> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > As of a few days ago, ppp(8) supports the -nat flag (as well as > the -alias flag for backwards compatibility), however, it's not > clear that we really want to go the whole hog and change the > library name & interface too. I've been on both sides of this issue, to be sure, but I have to say that looking at it now, I can't see any reason to change the actual name of the library right now unless we're also going to go whole-hog and change the API functions to PacketNATFoo() and such, something that would only really make sense (or be worth the effort, anyway) if we had a bunch of improvements to bring in at the same time, e.g. a significant rearchitecting effort. If we don't have anything like that planned, then simply changing the user visible flags and man pages to strongly encourage use of -nat style options rather than the deprecated -alias ones will probably be enough of a step in the right direction for now. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message