From owner-freebsd-questions Mon May 20 13:36:27 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA14729 for questions-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 1996 13:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.think.com (Mail1.Think.COM [131.239.33.245]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA14717 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 13:36:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Early-Bird-1.Think.COM by mail.think.com; Mon, 20 May 96 16:36:18 -0400 Received: from compound.Think.COM by Early-Bird.Think.COM; Mon, 20 May 96 16:36:12 EDT Received: (from alk@localhost) by compound.Think.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA17580; Mon, 20 May 1996 15:36:55 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 15:36:55 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199605202036.PAA17580@compound.Think.COM> From: Tony Kimball To: wollman@lcs.mit.edu Cc: questions@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <9605202029.AA24569@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> (message from Garrett Wollman on Mon, 20 May 1996 16:29:54 -0400) Subject: Re: ip masquerading Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Garrett has not spoken yet -- perhaps does not read "questions"? -- > but I wonder what his reasons are. I suspect, from other discussion, > that the point would be elegance of implementation. That's pretty close. I don't want the IP processing path cluttered with lots of nasty crap to do fifteen different non-standard actions to every packet... What if it were standardized? If there was a published masquerade RFC?