On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Julien Bordet wrote: > In fact, even if it does not really matter to you in fact, I'm not > talking about a kernel "proxy" here. I'm talking about something smart > enough to tag packets "related" and so to "pass" them. If we go on with > FTP, a piece of code that attach data connexions to the command > connexion initiated before. In case of a bridge, I clearly do not need > (and do not want !) a proxy, nor NAT support.
You mean like a proxy that inserts states for the data connections? oh, hang on...
