From owner-freebsd-security Wed Mar 7 16: 2:28 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from eterna.binary.net (eterna.binary.net [216.229.0.25]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E22F37B719 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 16:02:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nathan@binary.net) Received: from matrix.binary.net (postfix@matrix.binary.net [216.229.0.2]) by eterna.binary.net (8.11.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id f2801gu87533 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 18:01:42 -0600 (CST) Received: by matrix.binary.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 82EA383467; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 18:02:22 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 19:02:22 -0500 From: Nathan Dorfman To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: ipfw or ipf? Message-ID: <20010307190222.A72795@rtfm.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95i Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi all, What should I know before deciding on one of ipf or IPFW for a -stable machine protecting a small network? From what I recall, ipf had a few advantages like kernel-space NAT, keeping TCP state, and portability. What does IPFW do better than ipf? Are there any gross downsides to either? Thanks. -- Nathan Dorfman [http://www.rtfm.net] "The light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an approaching train." --/usr/games/fortune To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message