netdev - Re: Scaling Max IP address limitation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:52:34 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To:	david@...g.hm
cc:	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>, djones@...sove.com,
	LKML Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Scaling Max IP address limitation


On Jun 24 2007 13:44, david@...g.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 netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html