Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:28:42 +0100 (MET) From: sos@FreeBSD.ORG To: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Cc: danny@panda.hilink.com.au, SimsS@IBM.Net, tinguely@plains.nodak.edu, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PPP with network address translation Message-ID: <199612111028.LAA05791@ravenock.cybercity.dk> In-Reply-To: <32AE4A07.167EB0E7@whistle.com> from Julian Elischer at "Dec 10, 96 09:43:35 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In reply to Julian Elischer who wrote:
> Daniel O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> > Next question with the PPP Nat, is: who is going to hack this to work
> > with divert(4) sockets, so we can have a NAT box on ethernet, without the
> > need for a PPP link?
> >
> > Danny
>
> that's what we do here..
> (why we wrote divert sockets actually)
> but it;s inherrently kinked with the proprietary part of our system
> so we can't just give it away. (we'd like to however).
> but it really is a simple job. we're hoping someone just 'does it'
> as our hands are tied on this one..
>
> sos BTW has a purely in-kernel version of NAT (or is it HAT?)
> ours is a process that works on packets that come up via the
> divert sockets.
HAT??
And yes I have a NAT implementation that runs entirely in
kernel land, and it does all the footwork on ip, udp, tcp,
ftp, irc, realaudio etc etc. It soon will support multible
ip# to multible ip# and other fancy stuff.
The problem is that the code is now proprietary as well, so
I cannot release it either. However its not difficult to
do as julian states, and I still think it should be in
the kernel (or at least its needed in the apps where
its used here).
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Søren Schmidt (sos@FreeBSD.org) FreeBSD Core Team
Even more code to hack -- will it ever end
..
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612111028.LAA05791>