Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:47:30 -0000 From: "Bruno Miguel" <brunomiguel@netcabo.pt> To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipnat vs natd and ipf vs ipfw (fwd) Message-ID: <3A743F12.32501.160793@localhost> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101271919450.35303-100000@espen.oysnet.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Ipfw and ipf to my eye (without glasses that is) seem to do pretty much the same
> thing. The same is true for ipnat and natd. Of course there are differences
> between the two (ritgh?).
How do you map with a single rule a pool of private addresses into a pool of
real addresses with natd ? :>
> 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).
ipnat's ability to let you use non PASV mode in natted boxes for ftp when
you specify the ports is nice.
It's mainly personal taste.
...:-=>> The freaking Mail Band <<=-:...
hununu@netcabo.pt
D.E.Q. @ I.S.T. - Portugal
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A743F12.32501.160793>