From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:06:40 -0400 From: Nathaniel W Filardo To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20090415160640.GR4823@masters6.cs.jhu.edu> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mjrw6G9AoRBv8oQK" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Subject: Re: [9fans] NAT implementation Topicbox-Message-UUID: dc1d1d34-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --mjrw6G9AoRBv8oQK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 02:03:35PM +0200, Patrick Kristiansen wrote: > I'm thinking of writing a NAT implementation for plan 9. I would suggest instead that it might be easier to write an adaptor program for non-Plan 9 hosts which made their network stacks talk to a /net. That is, you'd want a program which spoke TAP/TUN out one end to the host kernel and out the other dialed and imported /net from the Plan 9 gateway. AFAIK TAP/TUN-like things exist on most OSes, and there's good example code in OpenVPN (for example). The program would have to know enough about the on-the-wire representation of TCP/IP and UDP/IP to do connection tracking etc. (much like NAT, I suppose) but the advantage is that it wouldn't impact the Plan 9 kernel. --nwf; P.S. This idea shamelessly stolen from vsrinivas, but he's mailing-list shy. --mjrw6G9AoRBv8oQK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAknmBhAACgkQTeQabvr9Tc+9AQCeKrN/DgyTMqFnzoiX0qLwN/2q yWYAn2rMJHpuydN4abjtWwQNP1GNMymu =j1Su -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mjrw6G9AoRBv8oQK--