From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 2 12:26:48 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C476B37B401; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out001.verizon.net (out001pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.140]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91EC843FBD; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:26:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com ([141.149.47.46]) by out001.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.33 201-253-122-126-133-20030313) with ESMTP id <20030702192644.JHUP12592.out001.verizon.net@mac.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:26:44 -0500 Message-ID: <3F0331EE.6020707@mac.com> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:26:38 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3F0316DE.3040301@tenebras.com> <20030702183838.GB4179@pit.databus.com> <3F0327FE.3030609@tenebras.com> In-Reply-To: <3F0327FE.3030609@tenebras.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out001.verizon.net from [141.149.47.46] at Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:26:44 -0500 cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance improvement for NAT in IPFIREWALL X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:26:49 -0000 Michael Sierchio wrote: > Barney Wolff wrote: >> NAT is not a security feature, > > Many would disagree with that assertion. Many people are wrong, then. NAT is not a security feature. Check the list archives of ... [ ... ] >> If you believe you need to NAT at even 1Gb, I'd look >> very hard at the requirements. > > Sadly, requirements are often exogenous. Nice word. :-) [ NAT sucks. In a very useful way, of course. Exogenous requirements may impose unreasonable constraints upon implementing the technically preferrable solution, just as "inept excess verbiage may disqualify qualifiers". And "But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?" and other tasty bits from the "Applesoft Reference Manual".... ] -- -Chuck