Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 18:07:34 +0200 From: Lukasz Stelmach <Lukasz.Stelmach@telmark.waw.pl> To: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@FreeBSD.org> Cc: SUZUKI Shinsuke <suz@crl.hitachi.co.jp> Subject: Re: if_stf bug/feature Message-ID: <20040511160734.GA66419@tygrys.k.telmark.waw.pl> In-Reply-To: <ygeisf3thbw.wl%ume@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Tue, 11 May 2004 18:59:31 +0900 Ume wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 6 May 2004 10:21:13 +0200 >>>>> Lukasz Stelmach said: Lukasz>> Well i *have*got* one v4ADDR that is assigned to my nat/router-box. I [...] Lukasz>> harm. Let's say taht to the rest of the world the nat+TIGGER act like Lukasz>> a single machine. > Yes, current if_stf is too restrictive against NAT, and skipping > certain checks enablea us to use 6to4 even behind NAT. I believe it > doesn't break RFC3056. IMHO it does not if everything is going to be corect after the packets go touring out of nat. > Once, I made a patch to do so for a friend of mine. But, it was based > on old source and somewhat redundant. I've just made a patch against > recent 5-CURRENT. But, I've not estimated if there are side effects. > I don't have testing environment for 6to4, now. Could you test it? In one of my previous letters I have mentioned that i use 4.9-RCsomething and unfortunately this is my only FreeBSD. I am also afraid :-( that i don't have enough spare time neither. But please send the patch and I will *try* to look at it if you don't mind. Bye. -- |/ |_, _ .- --, Już z każdej strony pełzną, potworne żądze |__ |_|. | \ |_|. ._' /_. Będę uprawiał nierząd, za pieniąze [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAoPpGNdzY8sm9K9wRAgGUAJ44bQ+bMnUHpn1H2uDys40QfZtdawCgmBIu 60NF5iK7hp1+Ku9gPB9jkwU= =Oj3k -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040511160734.GA66419>