Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:15:25 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: David Wolfskill <dhw@whistle.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipnat vs natd and ipf vs ipfw (fwd) Message-ID: <5.0.1.4.0.20010129121235.037a5ec0@marble.sentex.ca> In-Reply-To: <200101291716.f0THGu584049@pau-amma.whistle.com> References: <4.2.2.20010127225302.01e75660@marble.sentex.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 09:16 AM 1/29/01 -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
> >Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:54:20 -0500
> >From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>
>
> >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.
>
>Curious. My home firewall is (still) running FreeBSD 3.2-R; and it's a
>P-120 with 16 MB memory... yet I was able to FTP a good-sized (>1 MB)
>file from ftp.freebsd.org at >150 FB/s. And I'm using ipfw & natd.
Perhaps it was due to some interaction with natd and PPPoE. Not sure. From
the machine itself, I could get full rate throughput on all applications.
It was only from the machines behind the FreeBSD box where I would notice a
significant speed drop when using NAT. Going through squid, or even socks5
was/is quick-- only with nat would I see the speed drop (e.g. downloading
binary attachments from my news server). But as soon as I switched to
ipnat, the speed was at expected levels from all my home workstations on
all services.
---Mike
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?5.0.1.4.0.20010129121235.037a5ec0>