From owner-freebsd-net  Tue May  1 14:59:34 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from CPE-61-9-164-106.vic.bigpond.net.au (CPE-61-9-166-240.vic.bigpond.net.au [61.9.166.240])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82AB637B422
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Tue,  1 May 2001 14:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au)
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by CPE-61-9-164-106.vic.bigpond.net.au (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f41LwqV21782;
	Wed, 2 May 2001 07:58:52 +1000 (EST)
From: Darren Reed <darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au>
Message-Id: <200105012158.HAA22701@avalon.reed.wattle.id.au>
Subject: Re: The future of ALTQ, IPsec & IPFILTER playing together ...
In-Reply-To: <3AEF2007.5968E10D@aurora.regenstrief.org> from Gunther Schadow at "May 1, 1 08:43:51 pm"
To: gunther@aurora.regenstrief.org (Gunther Schadow)
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 07:58:27 +1000 (EST)
Cc: larse@ISI.EDU, snap-users@kame.net, freebsd-net@freebsd.org,
	ipfilter@coombs.anu.edu.au, altq@csl.sony.co.jp
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL37 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

In some email I received from Gunther Schadow, sie wrote:
[...]
> As an added benefit, the two network interfaces tun0 and fxp0 allow 
> me to cope with the limited power of IPFILTER's NAT rules (as compared 
> to IPFW).

What is so limiting about NAT in IPFilter ?

AFAIK, apart from packet matching capability, IPFilter NAT kicks ass over
ipfw or am I wrong ?

Darren

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message