From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed May  3 11:12:41 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
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 DCA2C16A402
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Wed,  3 May 2006 11:12:41 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from tbyte@otel.net)
Received: from mail.otel.net (gw3.OTEL.net [212.36.8.151])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62A5B43D4C
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Wed,  3 May 2006 11:12:41 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from tbyte@otel.net)
Received: from dragon.otel.net ([212.36.8.135])
	by mail.otel.net with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD))
	(envelope-from <tbyte@otel.net>)
	id 1FbFHc-000I8Z-1T; Wed, 03 May 2006 14:12:40 +0300
From: Iasen Kostov <tbyte@otel.net>
To: Paolo Pisati <p.pisati@oltrelinux.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060502162406.GA3596@tin.it>
References: <20060430135702.GA48117@tin.it>
	<1146569915.79123.9.camel@DraGoN.OTEL.net>
	<20060502162406.GA3596@tin.it>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:12:39 +0300
Message-Id: <1146654759.30275.18.camel@DraGoN.OTEL.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: FreeBSD_Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: [6.x patchset] Ipfw nat and libalias modules
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 11:12:42 -0000

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.