Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 18:54:49 -0500 (CDT) From: Tony Kimball <alk@Think.COM> To: gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: bmah@cs.berkeley.edu, questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ip masquerading Message-ID: <199605202354.SAA18444@compound.Think.COM> In-Reply-To: <22593.832631698@palmer.demon.co.uk> (gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG> Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 23:34:58 +0100 Putting in non-stateless hacks will just really screw things up. FUD. I think the gig will be to generate state in response to traffic. A Masquerade bug could start mixing up the i/o streams. FUD. If nothing else, I believe it is possible for a SOCKS implimentation for Windows workstations to be done at the winsock.dll level, isn't it? Windows can go suck eggs as far as I'm concerned. I don't care about Windows. I don't care about MacOS, and I don't care about OS/2. I care about my lawnmower, and keeping my pop-tarts in a non-combustive state. Just wait 'til you get a taste for those strawberry sweeties and alzheimer's sets in. Poof, there goes your house. Don't say I didn't warn you. I'm worried about the k12 using an FBSD gateway, having zero network expertise. I want them to be able to push a button and then when they plug in their Apple ][e it just works. One reason for having masquerade is to allow you to offload shell processing load from the gateway. You are promptly putting that load back on. Garrett has his reasons for not liking masquerading, I have mine. Fine, don't use it. I think it would be silly not to take advantage of it, once it is in place, however, since it will simplify your administrative burden.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605202354.SAA18444>