Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:10:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cheetah.davemloft.net (mail@adsl-63-197-226-105.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.197.226.105]) by oss.sgi.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i8MIAcrW015462 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:10:38 -0700 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=cheetah.davemloft.net ident=davem) by cheetah.davemloft.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1CABYZ-0004W8-00; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:09:31 -0700 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:09:31 -0700 From: "David S. Miller" To: hadi@cyberus.ca Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb Message-Id: <20040922110931.68b113a4.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <1095855039.1045.67.camel@jzny.localdomain> References: <20040922040155.GA19302@gondor.apana.org.au> <1095855039.1045.67.camel@jzny.localdomain> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; sparc-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Face: "_;p5u5aPsO,_Vsx"^v-pEq09'CU4&Dc1$fQExov$62l60cgCc%FnIwD=.UF^a>?5'9Kn[;433QFVV9M..2eN.@4ZWPGbdi<=?[:T>y?SD(R*-3It"Vj:)"dP Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 9303 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: davem@davemloft.net Precedence: bulk X-list: netdev Content-Length: 789 Lines: 23 On 22 Sep 2004 08:10:39 -0400 jamal wrote: > Geez, I missed that we killed static NAT too. Whats wrong with it? > I know at least two users of this - did we ask or > is posting on netdev == ask? It's gone until someone fixes it up into working condition once more. It's been broken ever since the first bits of IPSEC dst cache infrastructure went in. The old code is in the source history if anyone wants to resurrect it and try to get it going again, but frankly my opinion is: 1) there are ways to do that with other technologies in the tree, hey even tc actions could do it (wink wink :-) 2) judging by the amount of complaints of it not working any- more (ie. nearly zero), I don't think it's worth spending time on it But have at it if you want :-)