From owner-freebsd-questions Sat May 18 13:07:03 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA17488 for questions-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 1996 13:07:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from whistle.com ([207.76.205.131]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA17483 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 13:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from smap@localhost) by whistle.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA25976; Sat, 18 May 1996 13:06:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: whistle.com: smap set sender to using -f Received: from bubba.whistle.com(207.76.205.7) by whistle.com via smap (V1.3) id sma025974; Sat May 18 13:06:01 1996 Received: (from archie@localhost) by bubba.whistle.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05459; Sat, 18 May 1996 13:06:01 -0700 From: Archie Cobbs Message-Id: <199605182006.NAA05459@bubba.whistle.com> Subject: Re: ip masquerading To: terry@lambert.org Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 13:06:00 -0700 (PDT) Cc: dwhite@riley-net170-164.uoregon.edu, clintm@ICSI.Net, FreeBSD-Questions@FreeBSD.org, bmah@cs.berkeley.edu In-Reply-To: <199605180106.SAA00742@bubba.whistle.com> from "Archie Cobbs" at May 17, 96 06:06:07 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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