From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 4 09:00:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA28001 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:00:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ui-gate.utell.co.uk (ui-gate.utell.co.uk [194.200.4.253]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA27977 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:00:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from dibble.utell.net (dibble.utell.net [97.3.0.10]) by ui-gate.utell.co.uk (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA00486; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:59:00 GMT Message-Id: <199702041659.QAA00486@ui-gate.utell.co.uk> From: "Brian Somers" To: "Charles Mott" Cc: "Julian Elischer" , "Eivind Eklund" , "Brian Somers" , "Ari Suutari" , Subject: Re: Single socket version of natd Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:58:58 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk That's a good point. If we leave it in both ppp & natd, can we add a (third) arg to PacketAlias{In,Out}() that tells it not to do anything with the ip_sum ? If it's reading raw packets from a wire (with ppp), the sum may be wrong (this has been discussed before) and we want to leave incorrect the sum alone, but with natd, it's a terrible waste to have the kernel code zero the sum, have natd re-calculate it, have PacketAliasIn() check it, and then probably re-calculate it again (if anything's changed). With a "leave the sum alone option", natd could pass the packet with the zero'd ip_sum to PacketAliasIn() and know that it has to calculate it itself afterwards.... Cheers. Brian Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ---------- > From: Charles Mott > To: Brian Somers > Cc: Julian Elischer ; Eivind Eklund ; Brian Somers ; Ari Suutari ; hackers@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Single socket version of natd > Date: 04 February 1997 16:28 > > The one situation I think is difficult for natd to handle is is when ppp > is running in -auto mode, and it reconnects on each dial-in with a > different dynamcially assigned address. > > At the moment, natd can do device address lookup at startup, but to > handle the above mentioned case, it would have to do a device address > lookup for every packet. Is it possible to do this? > > I personally like having both ppp -alias as well as natd. Having the > software embedded in ppp and enabled with the -alias switch makes life > very easy for a great number of less sophisticated users. > > Charles Mott > > > On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Brian Somers wrote: > > > You guessed it - Charles originally wrote the code so. Eventually, I'd > > like to > > remove the -alias switch from ppp and have the only implementation being > > in the natd code. > > > > Brian > > > > Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour > > > > ---------- > > > From: Julian Elischer > > > To: Eivind Eklund > > > Cc: Charles Mott ; Brian Somers > > ; Ari Suutari ; > > hackers@freebsd.org; brian@utell.co.uk > > > Subject: Re: Single socket version of natd > > > Date: 04 February 1997 10:49 > > > > > > Eivind Eklund wrote: > > > > > > > > At 07:36 PM 2/3/97 -0700, Charles Mott wrote: > > > > >Eivind has these updates and has integrated them into his codebase, > > > > >which he is continuing to work on. He writes that he has changed some > > of > > > > >the compile options (ALIAS_ALLOW_INCOMING, ALIAS_SAME_PORTS, etc.) to > > ppp > > > > >commands. > > > > > > > So are we talking about ppp, or natd here? > > > teh subject line says natd.. > > > but sounds like that's not the case... > > > (or has someone abstracted out the alias code to > > > a separate module that can be used for both? > > > > > > julian > >