From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 12 10:18:55 2004 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 918F416A4CE for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:18:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from pit.databus.com (p70-227.acedsl.com [66.114.70.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 405A243D2F for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:18:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from barney@pit.databus.com) Received: from pit.databus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pit.databus.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0CIIrqb021306; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:18:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from barney@pit.databus.com) Received: (from barney@localhost) by pit.databus.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0CIIrcM021305; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:18:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from barney) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:18:53 -0500 From: Barney Wolff To: Andriy Korud Message-ID: <20040112181853.GA20984@pit.databus.com> References: <1073922339.4002c1238030d@isp.polynet.lviv.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1073922339.4002c1238030d@isp.polynet.lviv.ua> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NATD and available ports 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: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:18:55 -0000 On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:45:39PM +0200, Andriy Korud wrote: > Hi. > I need to run nat box for ~2000 clients with up to 300.000 active connections. > ipnat doesn't handle such load, so I'm going to try natd - but worry that natd > will simply use all available outgoing ports and then crash. > I have 128 public IP's and in ipnat's configuration just map smaller blocks of > private IP's into certain public IP, but have no idea how can I do this using > natd. You can run multiple copies of natd, each one on its own divert socket. ipfw rules can decide which internal machines & which external addresses go to which divert socket. Performance may well be an issue, depending on bandwidth. Perhaps one NAT box per 100 client boxes would not be overkill - is adding 1% to the h/w budget unreasonable? -- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.