From owner-freebsd-questions  Mon May 20 16:54:11 1996
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id QAA29946
          for questions-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 1996 16:54:11 -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 QAA29941;
          Mon, 20 May 1996 16:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Early-Bird-1.Think.COM by mail.think.com; Mon, 20 May 96 19:53:56 -0400
Received: from compound.Think.COM by Early-Bird.Think.COM; Mon, 20 May 96 19:53:52 EDT
Received: (from alk@localhost) by compound.Think.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA18444; Mon, 20 May 1996 18:54:49 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 18:54:49 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199605202354.SAA18444@compound.Think.COM>
From: Tony Kimball <alk@Think.COM>
To: gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc: bmah@cs.berkeley.edu, questions@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <22593.832631698@palmer.demon.co.uk> (gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG)
Subject: Re: ip masquerading
Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

   From: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG>
   Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 23:34:58 +0100

   Putting in non-stateless hacks will just really screw things up. 

FUD.  I think the gig will be to generate state in response to traffic.

   A Masquerade bug could start mixing up the i/o streams. 

FUD.

   If nothing else, I believe it is possible for a SOCKS implimentation
   for Windows workstations to be done at the winsock.dll level, isn't
   it? 

Windows can go suck eggs as far as I'm concerned.  I don't care about
Windows.  I don't care about MacOS, and I don't care about OS/2.  I
care about my lawnmower, and keeping my pop-tarts in a non-combustive
state.  Just wait 'til you get a taste for those strawberry sweeties
and alzheimer's sets in.  Poof, there goes your house.  Don't say I
didn't warn you.

I'm worried about the k12 using an FBSD gateway, having zero network
expertise.  I want them to be able to push a button and then when
they plug in their Apple ][e it just works.

   One reason for having masquerade is to allow you to offload shell
   processing load from the gateway. You are promptly putting that load
   back on. Garrett has his reasons for not liking masquerading, I have
   mine.

Fine, don't use it.  I think it would be silly not to take advantage
of it, once it is in place, however, since it will simplify your
administrative burden.