From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Jan 29 9:22:11 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from smtp1.sentex.ca (smtp1.sentex.ca [199.212.134.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C3C37B698 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:21:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from simoeon.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [209.112.4.47]) by smtp1.sentex.ca (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0THLag04626; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:21:36 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <5.0.1.4.0.20010129121235.037a5ec0@marble.sentex.ca> X-Sender: mdtpop@marble.sentex.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.1 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:15:25 -0500 To: David Wolfskill , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG From: Mike Tancsa Subject: Re: ipnat vs natd and ipf vs ipfw (fwd) In-Reply-To: <200101291716.f0THGu584049@pau-amma.whistle.com> References: <4.2.2.20010127225302.01e75660@marble.sentex.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 09:16 AM 1/29/01 -0800, David Wolfskill wrote: > >Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:54:20 -0500 > >From: Mike Tancsa > > >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