Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:03:47 +0000 From: Antony T Curtis <antony@abacus.co.uk> To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipnat vs natd and ipf vs ipfw (fwd) Message-ID: <3A756A33.E1089768@abacus.co.uk> References: <4.2.2.20010127225302.01e75660@marble.sentex.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Tancsa wrote: > > At 07:20 PM 1/27/2001 -0500, Espen Oyslebo wrote: > >Currently, I have ipfw and natd doing their job fairly well. Is there any > >point in switching (yeah,yeah, don't fix it if it ain't broken). > > Actually, I have found ipnat to be *much* faster for my home DSL > connection. My gateway is a lowly Pentium 133 and I can only get full rate > net throughput use ipnat. natd is about 33% slower than ipnat for my setup > on PPPoE. AFAIK, natd is a userland implementation whereas ipnat exists in kernel space This gives ipnat the advantage that packets don't have to cross between kernel and user space. However, natd really needs to be extended to support desirable features such as a NAT address pool - even if it only supports one pool, it'd be adequate because multiple instances of natd may be run. -- ANTONY T CURTIS Tel: +44 (1635) 36222 Abacus Polar Holdings Ltd Fax: +44 (1635) 38670 > All true wisdom is found on T-shirts. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A756A33.E1089768>