From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 3 17:09:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA04534 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:09:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from awfulhak.demon.co.uk (awfulhak.demon.co.uk [158.152.17.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA04484 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:09:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from awfulhak.demon.co.uk (localhost.coverform.lan [127.0.0.1]) by awfulhak.demon.co.uk (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA24492; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 00:41:55 GMT Message-Id: <199702040041.AAA24492@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96 To: Ari Suutari cc: "'cmott@srv.net'" , hackers@freebsd.org, Eivind Eklund , brian@utell.co.uk Subject: Re: Single socket version of natd In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Feb 1997 11:18:56 +0200." <01BC11C5.638A78A0@sodium.ps.carel.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 00:41:54 +0000 From: Brian Somers Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Hi, > > I fixed the core dump - it was a silly-almost-typing mistake. > About using /etc/services for the port numbers: I was already > putting it when I started to think should it be natd/tcp or > natd/udp or something else (since the sockets are not > tcp or udp sockets). Any opinions on that ? > > Ari S. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Somers [SMTP:brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk] > Sent: 1. helmikuuta 1997 5:35 > To: Ari Suutari > Cc: 'cmott@srv.net' > Subject: Re: Single socket version of natd > > The -l and -a options always core-dump. I havn't looked into what's causing > this. I've passed the -a option "10.0.1.254" and "raffles.coverform.lan", > both without the quotes and both resolvable on my machine. > > The -a option could do with checking for a name from /etc/services rather than > defaulting to 32000. > I received your fix for the coredumps - I'll test them tomorrow evening. Thanks. I've had a look at the getservbyname stuff.... it's possible to call getservbyname( ..., "raw" ) and have an entry in /etc/services saying masqd 6668/raw # This is a raw socket I think this is the best option - is there any reason why this shouldn't be so (cc to hackers@freebsd.org) ? It seems more appropriate than putting "untrue" stuff in here. Maybe "divert" would be more appropriate ? BTW, Charles/Elvind - what's the score with the code that attempts to "keep" the source port ? This idea is growing on me ;) I've tested 1.9 (http ref from www.srv.net/~cmott to Elvind's page) and it seems good. It's gettin' *real* close to 2.2-GAMMA now - it would be *really* nice to have this code make it to 2.2 :-O -- Brian , Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....