Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:20:50 +0100 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: CP4@mead.com Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NATD vs. IPFILTER Message-ID: <199809291420.PAA19077@woof.lan.awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Sep 1998 09:53:11 EDT." <8525668D.004B6788.00@dayton2.mead.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Hi,
>
> I have searched the mailing list archives but have not found a definitive
> answer for this question.
>
> I would like to do NAT with a freebsd box. The box is a spare 486 dx2/50
> with 40 MB that I have laying around.
> What I would like to know is: Between natd and ipfilter, which is faster,
> has lower memory footprint , and uses the least amount of cpu?
I would have thought that ipfilter should be faster, implying less
use of the cpu. WRT the memory footprint, I have no idea - they're
*probably* roughly the same.
However, natd does things that I'd be hugely surprised if ipfilter
does. Specifically, natd supports ``r''commands, non-passive FTP,
CuSeeMe, NetBIOS & IRQ transparently. It's also easy (and unlikely
to be affected by OS upgrades) to add your own special protocol
support (src/lib/libalias/alias_*.c).
> This is important to me because I also plan on running a small webserver on
> the same box and a small ( 1 host ) domain on the box.
Shouldn't be a problem with either (you probably wouldn't notice the
speed difference).
> Thanks,
> C.P.
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org>, <brian@FreeBSD.org>, <brian@OpenBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>;
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199809291420.PAA19077>