Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 10:30:20 -0700 (MST) From: Charles Mott <cmott@srv.net> To: Timothy J Luoma <luomat+next@luomat.peak.org> Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lowest end FBSD router machine possible Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971125100018.24690G-100000@darkstar.home> In-Reply-To: <199711251632.LAA14554@luomat.peak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Timothy J Luoma wrote: > is IP masq = natd? I'm not sure if you are talking about 1 thing or 2 -- > yes this is new to me, although UNIX isn't. Yes, natd can do IP masquerading, which is generally considered to be a many-to-one mapping from a private address space to a single public address. But it is also more generalized than this. > > Yes the machine will be running headless, serving as an IP-masq box. > > What types of problems were you envisioning? If you haven't done it before, it takes a little time to get a FreeBSD box working and develop a systematic understanding of things. If your ethernet cards are plug and play, you have to use some DOS program to set them to specific IRQ and base addresses. You have to avoid addresses already used by the serial interfaces, disks, etc. > > I've heard that FBSD did this better than Linux (from a Linux user) so I was > thinking it would be better to use FBSD than Linux for it... The older versions of Linux masquerading would crash the system in certain circumstances, mangle tcp streams and not handle ping requests, but the latest version is said to be pretty good. There seems to be a lack of clear setup instructions and Linux uses insmod to support IP encoding protocols for an added degree of confusion. But Linux does support more IP encoding protocols (CUSeeMe, for instance) than FreeBSD. Charles Mott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971125100018.24690G-100000>