From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Oct 21 17:53: 8 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from ece.cmu.edu (ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.136.200]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D671E37B401 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vpn46.ece.cmu.edu (VPN34.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.138.34]) (authenticated) by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9M0qrl12084; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:52:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:52:51 -0400 From: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" To: David Kelly , Allen Landsidel Cc: Kal Torak , FreeBSD Stable Subject: Re: ICQ with NAT problems Message-ID: <109960000.1003711970@vpn46.ece.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: <200110220047.f9M0lvw43677@grumpy.dyndns.org> References: <200110220047.f9M0lvw43677@grumpy.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.0 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sunday, October 21, 2001 19:47:57 -0500, David Kelly wrote: +----- | What am I missing about the problem that the punch_fw option in natd is | not supposed to deal with? Is my understanding ICQ is only a particular | implementation of IRC? +--->8 Er, no; while it has a similar purpose, the protocol is completely different and I would be surprised if punch_fw worked with it. -- brandon s. allbery [os/2][linux][solaris][freebsd] allbery@kf8nh.apk.net system administrator [JAPH][WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering KF8NH carnegie mellon university [linux: proof of the million monkeys theory] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message