From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <32217.135.214.42.162.1064954559.squirrel@www.infernopark.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] NAT From: To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> In-Reply-To: <200309301914.h8UJEXN29405@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca> References: <200309301914.h8UJEXN29405@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:42:39 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Topicbox-Message-UUID: 591b42ce-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 >> We (ehg, ynl) implemented a stateful IPv6-IPv4 nat >> (address/port/protocol translator) in Plan9. Works fine. > > Any source available? > > I just learned today that my ISP charges $10 per month per extra IP > address (how's *that* for a profit margin), so it has become something > more than a casual interest for me. I'm not particularly trusting of > those little NAT firewall boxes that everyone seems so enamored with > these days. whats wrong with it? I think those boxes works well (and act as plug-and- play firewalls). > I realize that IPv6-IPv4 is a different kind of translation, but it > would be nice to have something to start with. this is for use in the IPv6/IPv4 network. if your ISP gives you IPv4 network connectivity, you wouldnt need it. am i right? or am i missing something? dharani