From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 27 22:34:37 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C221065670 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:34:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from remodeler@alentogroup.org) Received: from courriel.marmotmail.com (courriel.marmotmail.com [85.17.36.172]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B88DE8FC26 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:34:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bruce.epifora.com (localhost.local [127.0.0.1]) by courriel.marmotmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58A1A23978E for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:37:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bruce.epifora.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF60D4761F9 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:51:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from bruce.epifora.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bruce.epifora.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26123-02 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:51:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from alentogroup.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bruce.epifora.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 593494761F8 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:51:51 -0500 (EST) From: "remodeler" To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:51:51 -0500 Message-Id: <20091027224716.M1459@alentogroup.org> X-OriginatingIP: 127.0.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Subject: Port-forwarding with IPFW / natd X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:34:37 -0000 Is there any reason to prefer port-forwarding with ipfw (forward ipaddr) vs. natd (-redirect_port), if I am using both subsystems in any case? I see natd uses libalias and an ipfw divert port, so my thought is that the ipfw approach would incur less overhead. Also, the ipfw approach permits a hostname for resolving where natd requires an IP address. Thank you.