> I, too, object to your use of the word 'modern' in this context, as it has
a
> certain positive ring to it that is not justified, IMHO. Linux IP
> Masquerading in 2.2 kernels is, in fact, a very limited NAT implementation
You seem to have reacted faster than you read ... I gave Linux IP
masquerading
as an example of the type of 'modern' features now available to NAT setups.
I
also qualified my use of 'modern' as meaning what it means -- recent, not
'good'
or 'better', however often those misinterpretations are made by PHBs. The
original post two which the objection was raised made no comment (that I
remember) w.r.t. Linux IP masquerading on purpose; I was refering to new
(that
is to say, 'modern') NAT implementations in general, not older (that is to
say,
'classic') NAT implementations.
> The NAT options in the 2.4 kernel's netfilter code are very much nicer.
And they would be newer, that is to say, 'more modern' than those features
offered by IP masquerading in the Linux 2.2 kernels, shifting the
masquerading
code slowly into the 'classic' part of NAT history.
Its English people ... if its not your first language, thats fine. Do not,
however,
criticise thoughts based on limited interpretations of individual words in
comments unless they are unequivically loaded.
--
Michael T. Babcock
CTO, FibreSpeed
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
