From owner-freebsd-security Mon Jul 30 11:39:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from smtp1.sentex.ca (smtp1.sentex.ca [199.212.134.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA81D37B401 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:39:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from simoeon.sentex.net (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by smtp1.sentex.ca (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6UId7S74947 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:39:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010730143219.04cbbad0@marble.sentex.ca> X-Sender: mdtpop@marble.sentex.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:33:11 -0400 To: From: Mike Tancsa Subject: Re: IPFW & natd vs ipfilter & ipnat In-Reply-To: <20010730115455.D18246-100000@icmp.dhs.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 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 Nothing formal, but on my 486 at home, I do get about 33% better throughput on NATed connections via ipnat vs. natd using DSL and PPPoE. ---Mike At 11:56 AM 7/30/01 -0500, Detective S.R. Ross Computer Crime division wrote: >I was wondering if there have ever been any benchmarking done for >the the performance differences between IPFW & IPF & their counter parts. > > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message