From owner-freebsd-questions  Mon May 20 22:13:13 1996
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id WAA27125
          for questions-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 1996 22:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tenet.CS.Berkeley.EDU (root@tenet.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.33.109])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA27120
          for <questions@freebsd.org>; Mon, 20 May 1996 22:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from conviction.CS.Berkeley.EDU (conviction.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.33.103]) by tenet.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA14495; Mon, 20 May 1996 22:13:08 -0700
Received: from conviction.CS.Berkeley.EDU (localhost.Berkeley.EDU [127.0.0.1]) 
	by conviction.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/1.3-tenet) with ESMTP
	id WAA24403; Mon, 20 May 1996 22:13:06 -0700
Message-Id: <199605210513.WAA24403@conviction.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.7 5/3/96
To: Tony Kimball <alk@think.com>
cc: terry@lambert.org, bmah@cs.berkeley.edu, questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ip masquerading 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 21 May 1996 00:03:18 CDT."
             <199605210503.AAA19856@compound.Think.COM> 
From: bmah@cs.berkeley.edu (Bruce A. Mah)
Reply-to: bmah@cs.berkeley.edu
X-Face: g~c`.{#4q0"(V*b#g[i~rXgm*w;:nMfz%_RZLma)UgGN&=j`5vXoU^@n5<Pi&akO)o^8;[r
 %l(8ZHlbF`dD>v4:OO)c["!w)nD/!!~e4Sj7LiT'6*wZ83454H""lb{CC%T37O!!'S$S&D}sem7I[A
 2V%N&+
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 22:13:03 -0700
Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

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.