Re: ng_nat revisited

From: Eugene Grosbein (eugen_at_kuzbass.ru)
Date: 02/07/05

  • Next message: Gleb Smirnoff: "Re: ng_nat revisited" 
    Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:02:55 +0700
To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>

    > D> It's been a while since the subject of ng_nat appeared on-list, I'm wondering
    > D> if there has been anymore work done on this?
    >
    > Now I'm trying to work on this. I don't guarantee any success in recent future.
    >
    > The first step is porting libalias to be a kernel module. I have already
    > patches to make it compilable as kernel module, however with some features
    > disabled - alias monitoring, sockets, and ipfw punching. The first two can
    > be abandoned, but ipfw punching needs to be reimplemented in kernel.

    Why do you think alias monitoring may be abadoned?

    Eugene Grosbein
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Gleb Smirnoff: "Re: ng_nat revisited"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: ng_nat revisited
      ... D> if there has been anymore work done on this? ... The first step is porting libalias to be a kernel module. ... but ipfw punching needs to be reimplemented in kernel. ...
      (freebsd-net)
    • Re: ng_nat revisited
      ... E>> D> if there has been anymore work done on this? ... E>> The first step is porting libalias to be a kernel module. ... E>> disabled - alias monitoring, sockets, and ipfw punching. ... but ipfw punching needs to be reimplemented in kernel. ...
      (freebsd-net)