On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Terje Elde te...@elde.net wrote:
On 18. aug. 2013, at 02.43, Adam Vande More wrote:
What about SSL/TLS for example? How would the router swap the header
in an encrypted session?
Same as it would any sessions since only the payload is encrypted. What
On Aug 20, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Adam Vande More amvandem...@gmail.com wrote:
and while you can rewrite that on a NAT-box using an application level
gateway, you can not do that if the session is using SSL or TLS.
Complete BS.
This seems to come down to a misunderstanding in the examples drawn
On 18/08/2013 00:29, Terje Elde wrote:
The obvious answer is IPv6, of course. I'm surprised no one has
mentioned it yet.
You seemed dead set on not renumbering the networks, and moving to
IPv6 would not only be just that, but also be harder than just
renumbering IPv4-nets, so you answered
On 18. aug. 2013, at 12.20, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
I'm not sure that TLS would cause more problems than any other packets, but
as you point out, the exercise is bound to be full of pooh traps as yet
undiscovered. FTP should be interesting, for a start. But for most things,
why would
On 18. aug. 2013, at 02.43, Adam Vande More wrote:
What about SSL/TLS for example? How would the router swap the header in an
encrypted session?
Same as it would any sessions since only the payload is encrypted. What
Frank calls basic nat, most people call static nat(at least people
On 18/08/2013 12:51, Terje Elde wrote:
On 18. aug. 2013, at 12.20, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
I'm not sure that TLS would cause more problems than any other packets, but as
you point out, the exercise is bound to be full of pooh traps as yet
undiscovered. FTP should be interesting, for a start.
On 16/08/2013 20:30, Terje Elde wrote:
On 16. aug. 2013, at 19:17, Frank Leonhardt freebsd-...@fjl.co.uk wrote:
Has anyone actually done this, and if so, how?
This is wrong on so many levels, and you'll have to work around all og them.
Yes, you can use nat, but what about adress-resolution?
On 17. aug. 2013, at 16:37, Frank Leonhardt freebsd-...@fjl.co.uk wrote:
This is just the sort of problem Google will have when it buys Facebook :-)
Probably not. If Google were to buy Facebook, I'm confident they'd be able to
renumber their networks if they have to.
Your explanation of the
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Terje Elde te...@elde.net wrote:
On 17. aug. 2013, at 16:37, Frank Leonhardt freebsd-...@fjl.co.uk wrote:
This is just the sort of problem Google will have when it buys Facebook
:-)
Probably not. If Google were to buy Facebook, I'm confident they'd be able
On 16. aug. 2013, at 19:17, Frank Leonhardt freebsd-...@fjl.co.uk wrote:
Has anyone actually done this, and if so, how?
This is wrong on so many levels, and you'll have to work around all og them.
Yes, you can use nat, but what about adress-resolution? And so on.
If it's a specific thing you
On 16 August 2013 20:17, Frank Leonhardt freebsd-...@fjl.co.uk wrote:
Let's say we're using MPD on FreeBSD at both ends of a link here, using a
VPN to connect two LANs. (The use of MPD is negotiable).
One LAN uses the address range 192.168.1.0/24 and the other uses the
address range, er,
11 matches
Mail list logo
