Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 19 May 1996 02:50:51 -0500 (CDT)
From:      Tony Kimball <alk@Think.COM>
To:        bmah@cs.berkeley.edu (Bruce A. Mah)
Cc:        questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ip masquerading 
Message-ID:  <199605190750.CAA08095@compound.Think.COM>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

  You're not alone...I'm trying to figure this out too.  I've been 
  looking through RFC 1122 (Host Requirements - Communications Layers) 
  and RFC 1812 (Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers).  I think these 
  are probably the right places to find info related to this topic, but 
  so far I haven't found it.

I don't recall whether it was private mail, but Terry did mention
router and MTU discovery, concretely.  According to the masq archives
at http:/www.indyramp.com/masq MTU discovery works in linux as of
5/16/96, so that prevalent estimations of what is feasibly
accomplished in a masquerade implementation may be obsolete.
I have not been able to exert the effort yet to determine whether
there is an extant problem with router discovery in linux masquerade.

IMO:  The lack of masquerade is likely to prove the most significant
disability of FBSD relative to Linux, vis a vis market requirements
in the forseeable future.  My most vulnerable assumption, in forming
this opinion, is probably my estimate of the proportion of potential
free unix users with multiple home machines *and* one of either multiple
home users or a dedicated/demand Internet connection.

I do not share your feeling that this is the wrong thing to do, partly
because I have seen mostly FUD from the con camp.  (This is not
necessarily a criticism of any con postings, however -- there can be
perfectly valid reasons to post FUD, and I believe some may pertain
here.)  I do heartily endorse the notion that intentionally
introducing defects into the IP stack is a non-starter.  The scorecard
right now tells me that iff pertinent RFC 1256 router discovery
requirements are not feasibly satisfiable in a masquerade
implementation, it is not an acceptable approach.










Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605190750.CAA08095>