Subject: stf and NAT
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Rodolphe De Saint Leger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/18/2007 11:08:57
I wrote a patch for if_stf.c in order to accept DMZ type setup.
http://220.127.116.11/if_stf.c (the full file)
Did I make any mistake in processing ?
Any comments ?
Actually, I'm using it without any problem.
This patch should not disturb existing setups (as the only exception
is tolerance about our local address on emission or reception) and can
be activated or not using a define (so it can be a kernel option like
I encountered this problem by the past and I use to resolve it using
NAT tricks (also if aliases tricks). Accepting 'dmz' behavior may be a
cleaner way to use 6to4.
I did this for me so the patch is against the 3-1-release branch, but
I'll work for a patch for -current if needed.
There is currently insufficient research to definitively conclude that
unix overuse is an addiction.