From owner-freebsd-stable  Wed Dec 18 14:12:30 1996
Return-Path: <owner-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA01233
          for stable-outgoing; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 14:12:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id OAA01228;
          Wed, 18 Dec 1996 14:12:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA16528; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 14:11:47 -0800 (PST)
To: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com>
cc: owensc@enc.edu (Charles Owens), sos@FreeBSD.org,
        luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it, julian@whistle.com,
        wangel@wgrobez1.remote.louisville.edu, dnex@access.digex.net,
        current@FreeBSD.org, stable@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: IP masquerading (for a LAN, _not_ PPP) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 18 Dec 1996 12:38:11 PST."
             <199612182038.MAA19182@bubba.whistle.com> 
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 14:11:46 -0800
Message-ID: <16515.850947106@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> The only point I would argue is that putting the filter/translation
> stuff inside the (user-land) ppp daemon combines the worst of both
> worlds.  Rather than doing this, it would make more sense to separate
> it out into a standalone process (via divert sockets) so it can be
> used more generally than just with PPP (cf. subject line of this thread).

I don't think anyone has ever argued otherwise (conceptually, pulling
NAT out of ppp makes sense for a lot of reasons!).  This didn't stop a
lot of people from needing something which worked in an adequate
number of cases right now. :)

						Jordan