From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: From: Eric Grosse To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: NAT In-Reply-To: <200309301924.h8UJObr00040@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:38:30 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 59241a16-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. Eric