Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754700AbXFXUwp (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:52:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751409AbXFXUwg (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:52:36 -0400 Received: from sovereign.computergmbh.de ([85.214.69.204]:2884 "EHLO sovereign.computergmbh.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751017AbXFXUwf (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:52:35 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:52:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Jan Engelhardt To: david@lang.hm cc: Kyle Moffett , djones@rossove.com, LKML Kernel , Andrew Morton , netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Scaling Max IP address limitation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <467EA7C1.4080006@rossove.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1050 Lines: 26 On Jun 24 2007 13:44, david@lang.hm wrote: >> On Jun 24 2007 15:08, Kyle Moffett wrote: >> > >> > Do you really need that many IP addresses? When somebody finally gets >> > around to implementing REDIRECT support for ip6tables then you could >> > just redirect them all to the same port on the local system. >> >> The way I see it, it's: "if someone gets around to implement *IPv6 NAT*" >> (which, if its designers were asked, is contrary to the idea of ipv6). > > true, but back in the real world it's sometimes desriable to hid _chich_ > specific machine somethign comes from. so I expect that implementation of NAT > is going tohappen at some point before it's widely deployed. Client-transparent SOCKS5 proxy. It already exists today! ;-) (Not as performant as an in-kernel NAT, though.) Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/