From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 14 08:38:41 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 414E716A4CE for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:38:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from arginine.spc.org (arginine.spc.org [195.206.69.236]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 501F243F3F for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:38:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bms@spc.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 764F06542F for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:38:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from arginine.spc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arginine.spc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 95554-01-4 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:38:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from saboteur.dek.spc.org (unknown [82.147.19.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CCB7651F4 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:38:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: by saboteur.dek.spc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 1ED2826; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:38:37 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:38:37 +0000 From: Bruce M Simpson To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20031114163837.GA64140@saboteur.dek.spc.org> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Subject: ng_nat vs natd vs ipnat? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:38:41 -0000 Has anyone implemented NAT as a Netgraph node? If so, how does performance compare to natd and ipnat? Regards, BMS