From owner-freebsd-security Mon Nov 12 6:25: 4 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from proxy.centtech.com (moat.centtech.com [206.196.95.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 929D037B417 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 06:25:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from sprint.centtech.com (sprint.centtech.com [10.177.173.31]) by proxy.centtech.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fACEOx429530 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 08:24:59 -0600 (CST) Received: from centtech.com (proton [10.177.173.77]) by sprint.centtech.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08880 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 08:24:59 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3BEFDB90.9CD7AEB7@centtech.com> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 08:24:16 -0600 From: Eric Anderson Reply-To: anderson@centtech.com Organization: Centaur Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: NAT vs Application layer proxy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org What are some of the advantages/disadvantages of an application layer proxy server, versus a box running NAT with packet filtering on it (like ipfilter or IPFW)? Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Anderson anderson@centtech.com Centaur Technology No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood. ------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message