From owner-freebsd-questions Mon May 20 17:24:46 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA02256 for questions-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 1996 17:24:46 -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 RAA02250 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 17:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Early-Bird-1.Think.COM by mail.think.com; Mon, 20 May 96 20:24:39 -0400 Received: from compound.Think.COM by Early-Bird.Think.COM; Mon, 20 May 96 20:24:36 EDT Received: (from alk@localhost) by compound.Think.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA18598; Mon, 20 May 1996 19:25:34 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 19:25:34 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199605210025.TAA18598@compound.Think.COM> From: Tony Kimball To: bmah@cs.berkeley.edu Cc: questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199605210010.RAA11094@premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU> (bmah@cs.berkeley.edu) Subject: Re: ip masquerading Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > From the masquerade host. ICMP works fine, to the network > > interface of the *system*. UDP is not a host requirement. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ To Tony: Are you saying that just because FTP, telnet, and Web don't run over UDP it's not important? I respectfully disagree. I'm meaning that lack of support for UDP would not make a masquerade scheme violate host requirements. Frankly I haven't clue one about how to implement UDP masquerade, never having so much as glanced at the problem. To clarify another point: I do not advocate a linux-style implementation of masquerade. I'm just too ignorant of the alternatives to make a specific proposal, and too enthusiastically supportive of the functional goal to keep my mouth shut. A dangerous combination. TCP is *more* important the UDP, though, for the preponderance of "customers", that much seems obvious. UDP is second-order. //alk