From owner-freebsd-security Mon Jul 30 14:53: 1 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from deimos.frii.net (deimos.frii.com [216.17.128.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7869B37B401 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:52:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jott@frii.net) Received: from io.frii.com (jott@io.frii.com [216.17.128.3]) by deimos.frii.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f6ULqtF87903; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:52:55 -0600 (MDT) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:52:56 -0600 (MDT) From: Jake Ott X-Sender: To: Mike Tancsa Cc: Subject: Re: IPFW & natd vs ipfilter & ipnat In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20010730143219.04cbbad0@marble.sentex.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 Because of CPU or because of protocol? -Jake On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > 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 > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message