From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Jan 29 12:44:14 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from resnet.uoregon.edu (resnet.uoregon.edu [128.223.144.32]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD3E814F7C for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 12:44:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu) Received: from localhost (dwhite@localhost) by resnet.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA90909; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 12:43:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 12:43:30 -0800 (PST) From: Doug White To: William Woods Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FW: DSL natd rules.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, William Woods wrote: > Hmmm.... > > Well I was planning on running NAT from the cisco to the FreeBSD > router/gateway/firewall and then NATD on the router gateway to deliver to the > rest of the LAN. This is a bad thing I take it? 1) The extra overhead of double-processing packets 2) Setting up static NAT or redirected ports becomes a nightmare 3) You're limited by what the DSL modem can NAT; at least on FreeBSD you have the source to hack :) > What would you reccomend doing to get around this? Finding an ISP in your area that does bridged, or dropping NAT from the BSD box and letting the router take care of that. I have a bridged DSL connection so I don't have this problem :) Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu | www.FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message