Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:39:23 -0700 From: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com> To: "Earl A. Killian" <earl@killian.com> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nat vs. state Message-ID: <3E95902B.8030607@tenebras.com> In-Reply-To: <16021.30488.437183.530248@sax.killian.com> References: <16021.30488.437183.530248@sax.killian.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Earl A. Killian wrote: > Is it safe to assume packets diverted to NAT are "safe" and don't need > further checking? In particular, can the use of dynamic/stateful > rules be skipped for NAT packets? It seems so, because NAT is already > stateful. Safe? Define "safe." ;-) For *dynamic* nat, probably so. For static nat (port/addr redirect) you'll probably want to have robust rules after diverting to natd.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E95902B.8030607>