From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <52815.135.214.42.162.1064956401.squirrel@www.infernopark.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: NAT From: To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:13:21 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Topicbox-Message-UUID: 592ced94-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > Richard C Bilson 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 sepera= te 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 I= SP 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