Subject: Re: stf and NAT
To: Rodolphe De Saint Leger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Zafer Aydogan <email@example.com>
Date: 07/18/2007 11:14:06
2007/7/18, Rodolphe De Saint Leger <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> I wrote a patch for if_stf.c in order to accept DMZ type setup.
> http://18.104.22.168/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.
Can you please write a patch for current.