From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Apr 10 06:52:27 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725D537B401
	for <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 06:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gate.killian.com (gate.killian.com [205.179.65.162])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7AD143F3F
	for <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 06:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from earl@killian.com)
Received: (from smmsp@localhost)
	by gate.killian.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) id h3ADqQFp053626
	for <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 06:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from earl@killian.com)
Received: from sax.killian.com(199.165.155.18)
 via SMTP by gate.killian.com, id smtpdlrLVvL; Thu Apr 10 06:52:24 2003
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <16021.30488.437183.530248@sax.killian.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 06:52:24 -0700
From: "Earl A. Killian" <earl@killian.com>
To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Subject: nat vs. state
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions <freebsd-ipfw.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ipfw>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:52:27 -0000

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.