Re: [9fans] Re: NAT

[<vdharani@infernopark.com>]

> 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