Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:12:39 +0300 From: Iasen Kostov <tbyte@otel.net> To: Paolo Pisati <p.pisati@oltrelinux.com> Cc: FreeBSD_Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [6.x patchset] Ipfw nat and libalias modules Message-ID: <1146654759.30275.18.camel@DraGoN.OTEL.net> In-Reply-To: <20060502162406.GA3596@tin.it> References: <20060430135702.GA48117@tin.it> <1146569915.79123.9.camel@DraGoN.OTEL.net> <20060502162406.GA3596@tin.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 18:24 +0200, Paolo Pisati wrote: > On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 02:38:35PM +0300, Iasen Kostov wrote: > > Have you done any performace comparisons with pf's NAT ? I realy would > > prefer libalias based kernel NAT than pf because libalias works better > > with ftp, irc dcc and things like that (VoIP would be nice too :P ). So > > the only reason I've not put it in production is because its to new and > > untested but as soon as I upgrade mine home to 6.x router I'll test it > > more extensivly. > > no performance comparison (at least not yet), but i don't > expect NAT to be a real bottleneck. Anyway, if we find > it's dead slow, i'll fix it :) > > > Btw what is the status of the multi-session to the same > > point PPTP NAT (e.g call ID tracking) ? > > i didn't modify the protocol specific nat support, so > it's just like with natd. > > btw a brave guy (Hi Patrick! :) switched 4 boxes > (i386 and amd64, UP and SMP) from natd to ipfw's nat and > everything went smooth, except for a little bug that i'm > tracking down... sounds good to me! :) > > bye Sound good to me too :). We have a dual opteron 248 here NATing (and that's its only purpose) about 2000 clients at ~300-400 Mbps full-duplex so the NAT could be a bottle neck :). But in time for the next upgrade (to 6.1) I'll test your patches to see what will happen. Regards.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1146654759.30275.18.camel>