From owner-freebsd-net Tue Feb 19 11:40:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (rwcrmhc54.attbi.com [216.148.227.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC14237B402 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:40:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from InterJet.elischer.org ([12.232.206.8]) by rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020219194008.KBIZ1214.rwcrmhc54.attbi.com@InterJet.elischer.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:40:08 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA58300; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:30:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:30:07 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: Juan Francisco Rodriguez Hervella Cc: Lista Subject: Re: NAT In-Reply-To: <3C7251E9.4B250385@it.uc3m.es> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 what's NAT4? On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Juan Francisco Rodriguez Hervella wrote: > Hello, > I have been doing some perfomance tests using the standard NAT > implementation for FreeBsd, and also using NAT-PT, with the KAME > implementation. > > In throughput and delay terms, the results are much worse for NAT4. > > May that result be due to the overloading introduced by ALG in the > standard implementation? Maybe it has to analyse the packets deeper?? > > Thanks in advance. > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message