From owner-freebsd-net Mon May 28 19:23: 9 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from molly.straylight.com (molly.straylight.com [204.69.232.69]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08CE37B423 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 19:23:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jonathan@graehl.org) Received: from case (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by molly.straylight.com (8.11.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f4T2Mxc17538 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 19:22:59 -0700 From: "Jonathan Graehl" To: Subject: Ipfilter nat vs ipfw divert + natd performance Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 19:24:05 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c0e7e6$6fb1ee00$6dfeac40@straylight.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2605 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I've set up an old Pentium to NAT my little brother's cablemodem using ipfw/natd. Would I see much better performance from ipfilter? (I assume that in-kernel NAT would be faster and have more consistent latency than a user process which might not be scheduled for a while?) The family does play a game of Tribes now and then, so unpredictable 10ms delays would not be fun for them. -- Jonathan Graehl http://jonathan.graehl.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message