Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 22:13:03 -0700 From: bmah@cs.berkeley.edu (Bruce A. Mah) To: Tony Kimball <alk@think.com> Cc: terry@lambert.org, bmah@cs.berkeley.edu, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ip masquerading Message-ID: <199605210513.WAA24403@conviction.CS.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 May 1996 00:03:18 CDT." <199605210503.AAA19856@compound.Think.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tony Kimball writes: > From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> > Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 21:30:39 -0700 (MST) > > > Host, protocol could be encoded in the port number. > > You have *got* to be kidding! > > Hey, I'm not the one who wants to recover state. I'm just trying > to scam out how it could be done. You've got a good 15.97 bits to > work with... I'd rather not recover state either. That was my point. :-) It's also kind of hard to cram 32 bits of IP address and X bits of port/application/whatever (where X is small) into 16 bits of port number, without needing some other kind of shared state. > > > It would be nice to pull out the rewriting stuff into loadable > > > rule sets. > > > > It would be nicer to not need them. > > > > Not an option, though, is it? > > It is for a real proxy. 8-). > > "real" proxies are still rewriting packets. They're just > spending a lot more to do it. That's okay, though. "Real" proxies transform data in the application layer, not by rewriting packets at the network layer. > The point is to make it work, not to make it work efficiently. To quote Terry: You have *got* to be kidding! :-) Bruce.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605210513.WAA24403>