|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 04 Aug 2011 13:30:35 PDT." <E01EC15F-A7B7-4D54-ADF7-D73C07D56282@delong.com> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:38:39 -0400 Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org --==_Exmh_1312504718_2554P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 13:30:35 PDT, Owen DeLong said: > On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > >> - Generic consumer grade NAT/Firewall > > > > Hobby horse: please make sure it support bridge mode? Those of us who > > want to put our own routers on the wire will hate you otherwise. > > > > Why? As long as it can be a transparent router, why would it need to be > a bridge? I must be having a senior moment, but what in the world is a "transparent router" and how is it different from running in bridged mode? (Note that if if it's transmogrifying the packets in some way, it's not really transparent, and if it's not, it's basically bridging...) --==_Exmh_1312504718_2554P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFOOzuOcC3lWbTT17ARAvtbAKDdooeZU5NU31M53SedmEC1/3CtFwCfeDVP Zlpho7sJG8///kVm4tGP5UI= =xBdO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1312504718_2554P--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |