[4544] in linux-net channel archive
Re: IP Masquerading (checksums)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Juan Jose Ciarlante)
Fri Sep 27 09:14:08 1996
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:15:50 -0300 (GMT-0300)
From: Juan Jose Ciarlante <jjciarla@raiz.uncu.edu.ar>
Reply-To: Juan Jose Ciarlante <jjciarla@raiz.uncu.edu.ar>
To: Remco van de Meent <remco@cal052012.student.utwente.nl>
cc: Charles Brian Hill <hill@unr.net>, linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <3.0b26.32.19960924211919.006b1fcc@cal052012>
On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Remco van de Meent wrote:
> If you wanna loose them, why don't you just simply comment out the code
> that log's such things in the source code for ip_masq. (though I dunno
> where to find it, never looked after it).
Here we come to the ``semantic'' question of masquerading, not being
a router nor an application-level proxy ... (something in between ;).
So, should we toss corrupted pkts or leave detection to linkends like a
router? Maybe we should only spend CPU cycles checking packets that go
through ip_masq application modules.
2
-- Juanjo, J C <jjciarla@raiz.uncu.edu.ar>
