Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[IPv4\]\s+Kill\s+remnant\s+of\s+ip_nat

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[IPv4\]\s+Kill\s+remnant\s+of\s+ip_nat_dumb\s*$/: 16 ]

Total 16 documents matching your query.

1. [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:01:55 +1000; xxx> Chee; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00975.html (8,213 bytes)
2. Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 22 Sep 2004 08:10:39 -0400; umptions.; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00986.html (8,601 bytes)
3. Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:09:31 -0700; patches.; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00999.html (8,794 bytes)
4. Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:14:33 +0200; hat area.; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01003.html (8,847 bytes)
5. Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb (score: 1): Author: emminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:19:23 +0200; is somew; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01040.html (9,821 bytes)
6. Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb (score: 1): Author: Schubert-While); Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:12:55 +1000; A sets up; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01045.html (9,141 bytes)
7. Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb (score: 1): Author: Leonid Grossman" <leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:29:55 +0200; P: 9022 6; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01047.html (9,785 bytes)
8. Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb (score: 1): Author: Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 23 Sep 2004 23:09:45 -0400; e message si; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01100.html (8,982 bytes)
9. [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:01:55 +1000; Hi Dave: This line in net/ipv4/Makefile was left behind when the rest of the dumb NAT option was taken out. Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http:/; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02431.html (8,258 bytes)
10. Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 22 Sep 2004 08:10:39 -0400; 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? cheers, jamal; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02442.html (8,661 bytes)
11. Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:09:31 -0700; 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 an; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02455.html (8,888 bytes)
12. Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:14:33 +0200; Also netfilter has a static NAT too these days, so it doesn't seem to be very useful to have another one. -Andi; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02459.html (8,983 bytes)
13. Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb (score: 1): Author: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:19:23 +0200; yes and no. From a functionality point of view: yes. From a performance point of view, there are applications for really dumb static NAT where you don't want to pull all the dependencies from ip_conn; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02496.html (9,995 bytes)
14. Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:12:55 +1000; Well the problem is nobody is stepping forward to fix it. It was removed not because it was redundant, but because it was broken. Until someone actually fixes it, it can't go back in. Cheers, -- Visi; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02501.html (9,215 bytes)
15. Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb (score: 1): Author: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:29:55 +0200; I fully understand this, and I support that decision. Independent of this, I just wanted to note that if there was working and compatible code, it had it's use for high performance static nat applica; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02503.html (9,879 bytes)
16. Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 23 Sep 2004 23:09:45 -0400; [..] indeed. What happened to he who breaketh fixeth? I may take a crack at it when i get the cycles. cheers, jamal; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02556.html (9,094 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 16
Page: [1]