Hi, >>>>> On Thu, 6 May 2004 10:21:13 +0200 >>>>> Lukasz Stelmach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Lukasz> Well i *have*got* one v4ADDR that is assigned to my nat/router-box. I Lukasz> have also configured that it should pass all packets that are not part Lukasz> of some known connections (from M1 M2 .. Mn) (including but not limited Lukasz> to proto 41) to one specified machine (name it TIGGER) that acts as the Lukasz> end of 6to4 tunnel for all other computers in the LAN. Now, for i Lukasz> controll both the nat and TIGGER i can do such manglig without any Lukasz> harm. Let's say taht to the rest of the world the nat+TIGGER act like Lukasz> a single machine. Yes, current if_stf is too restrictive against NAT, and skipping certain checks enablea us to use 6to4 even behind NAT. I believe it doesn't break RFC3056. Once, I made a patch to do so for a friend of mine. But, it was based on old source and somewhat redundant. I've just made a patch against recent 5-CURRENT. But, I've not estimated if there are side effects. I don't have testing environment for 6to4, now. Could you test it? Sincerely, -- Hajimu UMEMOTO @ Internet Mutual Aid Society Yokohama, Japan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED],jp.}FreeBSD.org http://www.imasy.org/~ume/ _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
