Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 13:06:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> To: terry@lambert.org Cc: dwhite@riley-net170-164.uoregon.edu, clintm@ICSI.Net, FreeBSD-Questions@FreeBSD.org, bmah@cs.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: ip masquerading Message-ID: <199605182006.NAA05459@bubba.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <199605180106.SAA00742@bubba.whistle.com> from "Archie Cobbs" at May 17, 96 06:06:07 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert writes: > > Actually, the only people who believe that it is evil are those > > of us who believe FreeBSD should comply with IETF standards so > > that the backbone routers don't refuse to connect us to the > > Internet. > > > > Which is to say, everyone who understands the problem. You seem to be implying that masquerading is ``detectable'' in some way by external machines, that is, that somehow it's going to screw up (or make angry) other routers on the Internet. This completely escapes me. In other words, if you're saying it violates some protocol, then that violation should be visible on the wire between the masquerading host and the rest of the Internet. Can you describe what that violation is? Remember, we're talking about a situation where the hosts behind the masquerading host are on a ``leaf'' network, without any other route to the Internet. Obviously, it would be totally screwey otherwise. So as far as the Internet, the IETF, the protocol police, and everybody else is concerned, there's only a single host at this site and it's obeying all the rules! If you disagree, then the burden of proof is on you to quote the relevant RFC's. -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie L. Cobbs, archie@whistle.com * Whistle Communications Corporation
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605182006.NAA05459>