From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Feb 14 5: 6: 7 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mip.co.za (puck.mip.co.za [209.212.106.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A0C37B416 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:05:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from patrick (patrick.mip.co.za [10.3.13.181]) by mip.co.za (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA71198 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:05:45 +0200 (SAST) (envelope-from patrick@mip.co.za) From: "Patrick O'Reilly" To: "FreeBSD Question List" Subject: gif and compression and ipfw Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:12:00 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi all. I've experimented with using gif devices to create private tunnels over the 'net. It worked just fine. From this I have two follow-on questions which I have not found answers to: 1) Can the data being 'tunnelled' also be compressed on the fly to squeeze more data through a line with little bandwidth? (and if so, How?) 2) How does ipfw interact with the gif(n) interfaces. As far as I could tell, ipfw was processing P:4 packets, but whatever emerged from the gif(n) interface did not pass through the ipfw ruleset. ?!? PS: I've also noticed IPsec while browsing the handbook. Would this be a better choice than gif, or are they totally different animals? Thanks for any insights or pointers. Regards, Patrick. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message