From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Jan 27 19:54:54 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from cage.simianscience.com (cage.simianscience.com [64.7.134.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 003D937B400 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 19:54:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by cage.simianscience.com (8.11.2/8.11.1) id f0S3saU77293; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:54:36 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from chimp (fcage [192.168.0.2]) by cage.simianscience.com (8.11.2/8.11.1av) with ESMTP id f0S3sK777285; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:54:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010127225302.01e75660@marble.sentex.net> X-Sender: mdtancsa@marble.sentex.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:54:20 -0500 To: Espen Oyslebo , stable@freebsd.org From: Mike Tancsa Subject: Re: ipnat vs natd and ipf vs ipfw (fwd) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-10 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 07:20 PM 1/27/2001 -0500, Espen Oyslebo wrote: >Currently, I have ipfw and natd doing their job fairly well. Is there any >point in switching (yeah,yeah, don't fix it if it ain't broken). Actually, I have found ipnat to be *much* faster for my home DSL connection. My gateway is a lowly Pentium 133 and I can only get full rate net throughput use ipnat. natd is about 33% slower than ipnat for my setup on PPPoE. ---Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Network Administration, mike@sentex.net Sentex Communications www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada www.sentex.net/mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message