Re: NAT66 : A first implementation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi all,

just a few words out of the strange land that retired netfilter hackers
go to:

1) I am quite at ease not participating in netfilter/iptables anymore
   while the discussion about IPv6 NAT becomes an issue again:  I always
   indicated "over my dead body", and now that I am no longer in charge,
   nobody will have to kill me ;)

2) I agree that there has been a lot of improvement between the
   abomination of what we are doing in IPv4 NAT and what is
   described in RFC6296.

3) For any netfilter integration, I would strongly suggest something
   that does not carry aroudn with it the burden of connection tracking,
   but rather something stateless.  Or at least have the conntrack
   dependency optional.  If there's no need for sophisticated state
   tracking as per the RFC, then don't make it a hard/mandatory
   dependency.

... and now I'll happily retire again to GSM land ...

Regards,
	Harald
-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>                 http://netfilter.org/
============================================================================
  "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
   architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
   on while IP was being designed."                    -- Paul Vixie

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


[Index of Archives]     [Netfitler Users]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux