Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:02:07 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> To: Jake Ott <jott@frii.net> Cc: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPFW & natd vs ipfilter & ipnat Message-ID: <20010731080207.L506@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.30.0107301552420.2093-100000@io.frii.com>; from jott@frii.net on Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:52:56PM -0600 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20010730143219.04cbbad0@marble.sentex.ca> <Pine.BSF.4.30.0107301552420.2093-100000@io.frii.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2001-Jul-30 15:52:56 -0600, Jake Ott <jott@frii.net> wrote: >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 ipnat runs in the kernel. natd runs in userland - every packet must be copied from kernel to userland and back again. This makes natd far more CPU intensive. If you're using userland PPP, you're better off using the NAT in ppp(8) - this saves a kernel->userland->kernel transition. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010731080207.L506>