Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 15:29:13 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: alk@Think.COM (Tony Kimball) Cc: bmah@cs.berkeley.edu, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ip masquerading Message-ID: <199605202229.PAA28715@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199605190750.CAA08095@compound.Think.COM> from "Tony Kimball" at May 19, 96 02:50:51 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> IMO: The lack of masquerade is likely to prove the most significant > disability of FBSD relative to Linux, vis a vis market requirements > in the forseeable future. My most vulnerable assumption, in forming > this opinion, is probably my estimate of the proportion of potential > free unix users with multiple home machines *and* one of either multiple > home users or a dedicated/demand Internet connection. This is a valid point. On the other hand, Linux-style "masquerading" is just one of several potential soloutions to the problem, and it is by far one of the most complicated of those. Since anything that gets done (if it gets done) is basically going to be a "from scratch" implementation, it might as well not be an ugly hack to the IP code. IMO, it would be *less* work to build the two socks daemons. I think the restriction that you must use two private address networks and set up routes to make this work for unsock'ified Win95 clients (for example) to be acceptable; there are sufficient number for private networks that you won't run out any time soon. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605202229.PAA28715>