Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 07:58:27 +1000 (EST) From: Darren Reed <darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au> To: gunther@aurora.regenstrief.org (Gunther Schadow) Cc: larse@ISI.EDU, snap-users@kame.net, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, ipfilter@coombs.anu.edu.au, altq@csl.sony.co.jp Subject: Re: The future of ALTQ, IPsec & IPFILTER playing together ... Message-ID: <200105012158.HAA22701@avalon.reed.wattle.id.au> In-Reply-To: <3AEF2007.5968E10D@aurora.regenstrief.org> from Gunther Schadow at "May 1, 1 08:43:51 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105012158.HAA22701>