On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov <s...@zxy.spb.ru> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 02:15:36PM +0400, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > >> >> Yes! This is the most clever thought in this thread. Why we need 3 >> >> firewalls? Two packet filters it's excess too. We have two packet filters: >> >> one with excellent syntax and functionality but with outdated bandwidth >> >> control mechanism (aka ALTQ); another - with nice traffic >> >> shaper/prioritization (dummynet)/classification (diffused) but with >> >> complicated implementation in not trivial tasks. May be the next step >> >> will be discussion about one packet filter in the system?.. >> >> MM> ... and as far as I can tell none of them is currently usable >> MM> on an IPv6-only FreeBSD (like protecting a host with sshguard), >> MM> none of them supports stateful NAT64, nor IPv6 prefix translation :( >> IPv6 prefix translation?! AGAIN!? FML. I've thought, that IPv6 will >> render all that NAT nightmare to void. I hope, IPv6 prefix translation >> will not be possible never ever! > > You disallow anonymization? NAT do anonymisation also. > _______________________________________________
Please stop it already, NAT has never done any real anonymisation. it's just one of the myths that just refuse to die. Use a real anonymiser like Tor if you want to keep your identity hidden. -Kimmo _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
