From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 11 09:07:38 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6586016A4CE for ; Tue, 11 May 2004 09:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 153-bem-1.acn.waw.pl (153-bem-1.acn.waw.pl [62.121.80.153]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 53F8643D53 for ; Tue, 11 May 2004 09:07:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from steelman@tygrys.k.telmark.waw.pl) Received: (qmail 66550 invoked by uid 1000); 11 May 2004 16:07:34 -0000 Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 18:07:34 +0200 From: Lukasz Stelmach To: Hajimu UMEMOTO Message-ID: <20040511160734.GA66419@tygrys.k.telmark.waw.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FCuugMFkClbJLl1L" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Mail-Editor: nvi X-GPG-Fingerprint: 68B8 6D4F 0C5E 291F C4E0 BBF4 35DC D8F2 C9BD 2BDC X-GPG-Key: http://www.ee.pw.edu.pl/~stelmacl/gpg_key.txt cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: SUZUKI Shinsuke Subject: Re: if_stf bug/feature X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Lukasz Stelmach List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 16:07:38 -0000 --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 l= ike 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. --=20 |/ |_, _ .- --, Ju=BF z ka=BFdej strony pe=B3zn=B1, potworne =BF= =B1dze |__ |_|. | \ |_|. ._' /_. B=EAd=EA uprawia=B3 nierz=B1d, za pieni= =B1ze --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAoPpGNdzY8sm9K9wRAgGUAJ44bQ+bMnUHpn1H2uDys40QfZtdawCgmBIu 60NF5iK7hp1+Ku9gPB9jkwU= =Oj3k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L--