From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Nov 16 0:44:29 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from web20106.mail.yahoo.com (web20106.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.226.43]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A890237B416 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:44:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20011116084418.31914.qmail@web20106.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [195.223.20.3] by web20106.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:44:18 CET Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:44:18 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Fabrizio=20Ravazzini?= Subject: natd/ipfw VS ipnat/ipf To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20011115101346.11165.qmail@web20105.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hello,we've done a Nat/firewall between our 2 Lan and the Internet with natd & ipfw. We've read somewhere that we can do the same thing using ipnat & ipfilter (as is in openbsd), the question is, why someone did so? is ipnat/ipf faster than natd/ipfw ? or also ipf more "secure" than ipfw? We question this because our 2 Lan are composed of about 200 machines, so some extra speed would be appreciated. thanks INTERNET | | |Public Ip0 _____|_________ | Router CISCO | +------+--------+ | |PublicIP1 +---------+ | NAT | |Firewall | +---------+ | |________LAN2 192.168.1.x | LAN1 10.0.0.x ______________________________________________________________________ Abbonati a Yahoo! ADSL con Atlanet! Naviga su Internet ad alta velocitą, e senza limiti di tempo! Per saperne di pił vai alla pagina http://adsl.yahoo.it To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message