From owner-freebsd-questions Mon May 20 22:45:00 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id WAA28938 for questions-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 1996 22:45:00 -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 WAA28933 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 22:44:58 -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 WAA14722; Mon, 20 May 1996 22:44:56 -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 WAA28805; Mon, 20 May 1996 22:44:56 -0700 Message-Id: <199605210544.WAA28805@conviction.CS.Berkeley.EDU> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.7 5/3/96 To: Tony Kimball cc: bmah@cs.berkeley.edu, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ip masquerading In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 20 May 1996 19:25:34 CDT." <199605210025.TAA18598@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^@n5v4: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 22:44:55 -0700 Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Tony Kimball writes: > > > > > 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. OK, got it. > Frankly I haven't clue one about > how to implement UDP masquerade, never having so much as glanced at > the problem. Me either. It's hard, no doubt about it. > 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. Well...I should clarify my POV (point of view) too, I guess. I'm kind of a traditionalist (I used to work down the hall from the Berkeley CSRG, maybe that has something to do with it). The idea of adding hacks to a system to support a workaround for ISP pricing makes me very uneasy (as do many of the newer developments on the Internet). If that's FUD, so be it. > TCP is *more* important the UDP, though, for the preponderance > of "customers", that much seems obvious. UDP is second-order. Given that all the Web stuff relies on TCP, I agree. For now. But multimedia applications tend to rely on UDP (for example, all of the MBONE tools). The idea of only being able to support specific applications really bothers me. In some cases (i.e. a firewall) this exactly what is required. But for general-purpose connectivity, I'm afraid that this will just result in people hanging more and more "warts" off the IP stack that will make it slower and harder to maintain (in addition to my other gripes earlier). Bruce.