From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <10d8f6d9308f84b67b6bcb2ea6924867@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:54:37 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <fec7c4379555cf2f090b38caac39f061@quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] nat
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4618b12c-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?

++L