From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 3 01:30:11 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B75F37B401; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 01:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from da.mailomat.net (mailomat.net [212.185.46.86]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A956343FE0; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 01:30:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ap@bnc.net) Received: This line has been intentionally left blank. Received: from colossus.bnc.net (port-212-202-7-149.reverse.qsc.de [212.202.7.149]) (user=bnc.mail author=<> mech=PLAIN bits=0) h638RD8J023951; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:27:15 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ap@bnc.net) Received: from colossus.bnc.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by colossus.bnc.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h638TqZ1092903; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:29:53 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ap@colossus.bnc.net) Received: (from ap@localhost) by colossus.bnc.net (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h638Tquw092902; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:29:52 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ap) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:29:52 +0200 From: Achim Patzner To: Chuck Swiger Message-ID: <20030703082952.GA92881@bnc.net> References: <3F0316DE.3040301@tenebras.com> <20030702183838.GB4179@pit.databus.com> <3F0327FE.3030609@tenebras.com> <3F0331EE.6020707@mac.com> <3F0350C7.7010009@tenebras.com> <3F036571.8030609@mac.com> <3F036DEE.8010408@tenebras.com> <3F037D5B.9070908@mac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F037D5B.9070908@mac.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance improvement for NAT in IPFIREWALL X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:30:11 -0000 On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:48:27PM -0400, Chuck Swiger wrote: > >>"Since NAT actually adds no security, > >You're of the school that sez "what I tell you three times is true?" > It worked for Dorothy, right? :-) Well... If you only want to convince hillbillies it might be enough. Actually NAT makes networks safer; it has been stopping a lot of drive-by self-foot-shooting by Windows users around me (who were so frustrated by not being able to run their c00l borgware. You see? I'm a strong believer in "the enemy is NOT out there on the Net"... Achim