From owner-freebsd-questions  Thu May 29 23:36:07 1997
Return-Path: <owner-questions>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA01897
          for questions-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 1997 23:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.cdrom.com [204.216.27.21])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA01892
          for <questions@freebsd.com>; Thu, 29 May 1997 23:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gatekeeper.barcode.co.il (gatekeeper.barcode.co.il [192.116.93.17])
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA08568
	for <questions@freebsd.com>; Thu, 29 May 1997 23:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from nadav@localhost) by gatekeeper.barcode.co.il (8.8.5/8.6.12) id JAA22058; Fri, 30 May 1997 09:33:25 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 09:33:25 +0300 (IDT)
From: Nadav Eiron <nadav@barcode.co.il>
To: mark thompson <thompson@squirrel.tgsoft.com>
cc: questions@freebsd.com
Subject: Re: ipfw .vs. ipfilter
In-Reply-To: <19970530043316.465.qmail@squirrel.tgsoft.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970530093242.22016B-100000@gatekeeper.barcode.co.il>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk



On 30 May 1997, mark thompson wrote:

> I am puzzled by ipfw and ipfilter.
> 
> I am looking at ipfilter to get NAT, because i believe that ipfw
> provides "enough" security.
> 
> q) is it true that ipfw and ipfilter are providing roughly the same
> function? 

Yes, excpt for NAT (at least AFAIK).

> 
> q) if so, is there a reason to prefer one or the other? (Why does
> FreeBSD come with ipfw?)

This is a question of religion, so I prefer not to answer ;-) You may 
want to look through the archives.

> 
> -mark
> 
Nadav