From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 23 03:17:39 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F7C106566B for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 03:17:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com) Received: from smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.157.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770EB8FC14 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 03:17:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com) Received: from mr08.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.28]) by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2008 22:49:02 -0400 Received: from smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.11]) by mr08.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 3.8.6-GA) with ESMTP id JUI70074; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:49:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 209-6-22-188.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO jerusalem.litteratus.org.litteratus.org) ([209.6.22.188]) by smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2008 23:50:12 -0400 From: Robert Huff MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18405.50481.878438.534290@jerusalem.litteratus.org> Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:49:21 -0400 To: ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.5 (beta28) "fuki" XEmacs Lucid X-Junkmail-Whitelist: YES (by domain whitelist at mr08.lnh.mail.rcn.net) Cc: roberthuff@rcn.com Subject: new NAT method ?? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 03:17:39 -0000 (I am not subscribed; please "CC:" me.) I have been told that for 7.0+, network address translation involving ipfw no longer uses natd(8). Is this so? If it is, where do I find documentation on the new correct way to do things? (Online Handbook says nothing; nor does my on-disk version.) (I've searched the ipfw@ archives back to June and found nothing.) Respectfully, Robert Huff