From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <92f848eb1b18661062ea870639204301@caldo.demon.co.uk>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] NAT
From: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <200309301805.h8UI50l24099@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="upas-vwafdlhdssthvdswfggetpogkp"
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:39:49 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 590916b2-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--upas-vwafdlhdssthvdswfggetpogkp
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

i'm not sure it is inherently a bad idea.
it's as messy as it is (and frankly it's not that bad),
mainly because many important ipv4 things were designed
before it, and the ipv6 people apparently thought they
needn't even try, similar to the length field in 802.?

--upas-vwafdlhdssthvdswfggetpogkp
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: <9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu>
Received: from punt-3.mail.demon.net by mailstore
	for forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk id 1A4Otb-0001lw-Ec;
	Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:06:47 +0000
Received: from [130.203.4.6] (helo=mail.cse.psu.edu)
	by punt-3.mail.demon.net with esmtp id 1A4Otb-0001lw-Ec
	for forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:06:47 +0000
Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001)
	id B340819AC4; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:06:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.6.6])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP
	id F124519C44; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:06:22 -0400 (EDT)
X-Original-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001)
	id 12CA319BD4; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:05:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca (plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.140.200])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 45BD719A2C
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:05:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from rcbilson@localhost)
	by plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca (8.11.7/8.11.7) id h8UI50l24099
	for 9fans@cse.psu.edu; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:05:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard C Bilson <rcbilson@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca>
Message-Id: <200309301805.h8UI50l24099@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: [9fans] NAT
Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu>
List-Archive: <https://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:05:00 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0
	tests=none
	version=2.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)

I realize that there are a number of reasons why network address
translation is a bad idea, but I'm curious: has anyone ever implemented
it using a plan 9 system, and, if so, what have your experiences been?
--upas-vwafdlhdssthvdswfggetpogkp--