* [9fans] Re: NAT
@ 2003-09-30 19:24 Richard C Bilson
2003-09-30 19:38 ` Eric Grosse
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Richard C Bilson @ 2003-09-30 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
Ah. I found the paper by ehg and ynl. Nice, but I don't have any
spare network processors lying around. Of course, I wouldn't actually
need them to do the simple/low volume stuff that I want to do.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: NAT
2003-09-30 19:24 [9fans] Re: NAT Richard C Bilson
@ 2003-09-30 19:38 ` Eric Grosse
2003-09-30 21:13 ` vdharani
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Eric Grosse @ 2003-09-30 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
Richard C Bilson <rcbilson@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Ah. I found the paper by ehg and ynl. Nice, but I don't have any
> spare network processors lying around. Of course, I wouldn't actually
> need them to do the simple/low volume stuff that I want to do.
IEEE Network, July/August 2003, 17:4,35-39
We also did it in Plan 9 on a simple PC, for comparison and to get
the code right before diving into IXP1200 assembler. As far as
Plan 9 experience is concerned, the nice part was how easily IPv6
went in. NAT itself is pretty straightforward on any OS.
The Lucent Firewall product runs (a mix of Inferno and) Plan 9.
> Any source available?
Because of the commercial products, we decided not to polish our
NAT implementation and put it into the standard distribution.
With decent home NAT devices available for $50 or less, it
hardly seemed worth the extra effort.
Eric
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: NAT
2003-09-30 19:38 ` Eric Grosse
@ 2003-09-30 21:13 ` vdharani
2003-09-30 20:16 ` boyd, rounin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: vdharani @ 2003-09-30 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> Richard C Bilson <rcbilson@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> Ah. I found the paper by ehg and ynl. Nice, but I don't have any
>> spare network processors lying around. Of course, I wouldn't actually
>> need them to do the simple/low volume stuff that I want to do.
> IEEE Network, July/August 2003, 17:4,35-39
>
> We also did it in Plan 9 on a simple PC, for comparison and to get the
> code right before diving into IXP1200 assembler. As far as
> Plan 9 experience is concerned, the nice part was how easily IPv6
> went in. NAT itself is pretty straightforward on any OS.
>
> The Lucent Firewall product runs (a mix of Inferno and) Plan 9.
>
>> Any source available?
> Because of the commercial products, we decided not to polish our
> NAT implementation and put it into the standard distribution.
> With decent home NAT devices available for $50 or less, it
> hardly seemed worth the extra effort.
sometime back there was a mail that said NAT and firewall code will be
integrated to Plan 9 kernel. i was wondering whether it is really a good
idea to put NAT/firewall code into the OS. i think it is better to seperate
NAT/firewall code from the kernel (unlike linux, FreeBSD, Win, etc). At
times, it may look really needed (like a standalone box connected to an ISP
network directly), but i think at best we can have it as a user-level
application to meet these scenarios. Just my opinion.
Thanks
dharani
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-10-01 0:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-09-30 19:24 [9fans] Re: NAT Richard C Bilson
2003-09-30 19:38 ` Eric Grosse
2003-09-30 21:13 ` vdharani
2003-09-30 20:16 ` boyd, rounin
2003-10-01 0:07 ` David Presotto
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).