From owner-freebsd-stable  Sun Jan 28  7:49:37 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from netcabo.pt (unknown [212.113.161.137])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD9F237B400
	for <stable@freebsd.org>; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 07:49:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from netcabo ([213.22.31.177]) by netcabo.pt  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53);
	 Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:47:47 +0000
From: "Bruno Miguel" <brunomiguel@netcabo.pt>
Organization: Artists, Inc.
To: stable@freebsd.org
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:47:30 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: ipnat vs natd and ipf vs ipfw (fwd)
Reply-To: brunomiguel@netcabo.pt
Message-ID: <3A743F12.32501.160793@localhost>
In-reply-to: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101271919450.35303-100000@espen.oysnet.lan>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> 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