From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Wed Mar 18 04:31:21 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722C427BE6D for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 04:31:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from neel@neelc.org) Received: from rainpuddle.neelc.org (rainpuddle.neelc.org [66.42.69.219]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48hxtv150vz4dp6 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 04:31:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from neel@neelc.org) Received: from mail.neelc.org (rainpuddle.neelc.org [IPv6:2001:19f0:8001:fed:5400:2ff:fe73:c622]) by rainpuddle.neelc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D8ACBB1EFE for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 21:31:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 21:31:10 -0700 From: Neel Chauhan To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: IPFW In-Kernel NAT vs PF NAT Performance User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.1 Message-ID: X-Sender: neel@neelc.org X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48hxtv150vz4dp6 X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=neelc.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of neel@neelc.org designates 66.42.69.219 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=neel@neelc.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.03 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.89)[-0.893,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-net@freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-0.998,0]; IP_SCORE(-3.34)[ip: (-9.81), ipnet: 66.42.64.0/20(-4.91), asn: 20473(-1.91), country: US(-0.05)]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[neelc.org,none]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:20473, ipnet:66.42.64.0/20, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 04:31:21 -0000 Hi freebsd-net@ mailing list, Right now, my firewall is a HP T730 thin client (with a Dell Broadcom 5720 PCIe NIC) running FreeBSD 12.1 and IPFW's In-Kernel NAT. My ISP is "Wave G" in the Seattle area, and I have the Gigabit plan. Speedtests usually give me 700 Mbps down/900 Mbps up, and 250-400 Mbps down/800 Mbps up during the Coronavirus crisis. However, I'm having problems with an application (Tor relays) where I am not able to use a lot of bandwidth for Tor, Coronavirus-related telecommuting or not. My Tor server is separate from my firewall. Which firewall gives better performance, IPFW's In-Kernel NAT or PF NAT? I am dealing with 1000s of concurrent connections but browsing-level-bandwidth at once with Tor. Also, I hope you all stay safe and healthy during the Coronavirus crisis. -Neel === https://www.neelc.org/