From owner-freebsd-net  Fri Mar 31 23:41:51 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from sharmas.dhs.org (c62443-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com [24.0.69.165])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A40B837BB45
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 23:41:49 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org)
Received: (from adsharma@localhost)
	by sharmas.dhs.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28145
	for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 23:41:56 -0800
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 23:41:56 -0800
From: Arun Sharma <adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org>
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: kernel vs user level implementation of NAT
Message-ID: <20000331234156.A28140@sharmas.dhs.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.6i
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Can someone point me to some discussion or literature on why *BSDs chose
to implement natd as a daemon as opposed to a kernel service ? I'm 
particularly interested in the performance (latency) aspects of the issue.

Thanks in advance,

	-Arun


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message