From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <0fa43ae03169495494f44021c0ed6838@quanstro.net>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 10:52:59 -0500
In-Reply-To: <10d8f6d9308f84b67b6bcb2ea6924867@proxima.alt.za>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] nat
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 46270ee8-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> i've got a lot of folk in the house who run whatever.
>> i'd really like to decommission the non-plan 9 machine.
>> the one thing i need from it is nat.  (and i don't want
>> to be stuck fiddling more stuff on the dsl appliance.)
>> doing nat just isn't that hard.  i just need to find the time.
>> this is about a summer-of-code sized project.  i don't think
>> it would require anything from the kernel.
>
> I beg to differ.  NAT adds complications to the already complex IP.
> Adding NAT to the Plan 9 IP stack can only make it more fragile, why
> not leave the job to the appliances that have been designed and
> constructed to deal with the problem and have been subject to very
> broad testing?

perhaps you forgot to read the part where i said
i don't think this would require anything from the
kernel; the ip would not need modification.

- erik