From owner-freebsd-questions  Mon May 20 21:39:11 1996
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id VAA23122
          for questions-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 1996 21:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA23111;
          Mon, 20 May 1996 21:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id VAA29880; Mon, 20 May 1996 21:34:48 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199605210434.VAA29880@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: ip masquerading
To: alk@Think.COM (Tony Kimball)
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 21:34:48 -0700 (MST)
Cc: gpalmer@freebsd.org, bmah@cs.berkeley.edu, questions@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199605202354.SAA18444@compound.Think.COM> from "Tony Kimball" at May 20, 96 06:54:49 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>    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.

This is silly.  You'll call into your firewall, and call your toaster
on a non-routed network from there.  You're poptarts aren't going
to call you; at worst, they will send a "help me!  I'm burrrrniiinnng!"
SNMP trap to the firewall, which will trap to 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.

Lets see you do this with Linux, which has "masquerading".  8-).

>    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.

There's the rub: it's not in place.

					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.