From owner-freebsd-net Tue Mar 19 1:53: 2 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (rwcrmhc54.attbi.com [216.148.227.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19BBF37B402 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 01:53:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from blossom.cjclark.org ([12.234.91.48]) by rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020319095259.SZUN1214.rwcrmhc54.attbi.com@blossom.cjclark.org>; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:52:59 +0000 Received: (from cjc@localhost) by blossom.cjclark.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2J9qxN66033; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 01:52:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cjc) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 01:52:59 -0800 From: "Crist J. Clark" To: Eugene Grosbein Cc: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: natd and static nat for different subnets Message-ID: <20020319015259.M60554@blossom.cjclark.org> Reply-To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu References: <3C96CCDA.C54342F5@svzserv.kemerovo.su> <20020318225141.I60554@blossom.cjclark.org> <3C96E940.95335672@svzserv.kemerovo.su> <20020319011822.K60554@blossom.cjclark.org> <3C97043B.449715B2@svzserv.kemerovo.su> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3C97043B.449715B2@svzserv.kemerovo.su>; from eugen@svzserv.kemerovo.su on Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 04:26:19PM +0700 X-URL: http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 04:26:19PM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > "Crist J. Clark" wrote: > > > > Would it be hard to implement this? > > > > Probably not too bad. Apparently no stampede for this functionality > > though. There usually is not a lot to gain by mapping different > > internal networks to different external addresses except maybe some > > warm fuzzies. > > Consider small-to-medium ISP and consumer's networks with little demand > of real IP addresses. OK... I considered them. I don't see what mapping different address blocks to a different address gains you. > > > Is it issue of natd itself or of libalias? > > I think it's more of a libalias(3) issue. > > Thanks. I forgot point out that ipnat(8) will do this as-is if that is an option for you. -- Crist J. Clark | cjclark@alum.mit.edu | cjclark@jhu.edu http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | cjc@freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message