From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan 29 22:13:09 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4AA6364
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:13:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com (mail-ob0-f173.google.com
 [209.85.214.173])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACB631B11
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:13:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ob0-f173.google.com with SMTP id vb8so2679515obc.32
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:13:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
 :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=GckPHiI9a/2+Gf0AHSbohTZlaqKbhg9pQP7WdXxKGCo=;
 b=gynnUql15H7UQWQVGNvDCMhnMeXGs/q3ykXwVN93aezcjU9dXEqjYbCxrVZmP3nAYM
 vCFbhi7Mb9gPliBEPJXtOYmmQX3qcN5vZarL9r3X016bq8xXxtwuafoMWJ+bhPL/U6Pb
 9tyZLL4ByE3bTdCsEthTDqbBlyLWfXK5p+KvZBNo8Mu0IOjcODQEbJ+Lo0R48qrc/qj3
 uvNOb19sOEYA2ikeMfBCfvx1o+e6Cc3jfIpey0zy1/QUFVHJRwXbgYavFLdH4lkeYDD9
 MioAnaibwndXrn5wALn4NJktqBOdy+kL8ldINfQHhv9I4CMq4Cmh3HnZPUwV68DanjLx
 euFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlLZsxgxyUWPFIdKIOditrrb2ul0gteLYe0YQr+PC9w1eGbE729pv58k2TooPMIwMQoxigs
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.135.194 with SMTP id pu2mr8446331obb.38.1391033581991;
 Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:13:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.60.21.8 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:13:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <B62507FE-80CF-4024-9C71-699E2BA02B76@gmail.com>
References: <B62507FE-80CF-4024-9C71-699E2BA02B76@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:13:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHu1Y73ojcVwG43zzc9bDgWiDehGiaP6ww_GDQYmXzhx_3STUA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Necessary to implement static NAT 1:1
From: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com>
To: Joshua Smith <juicewvu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:13:10 -0000

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Joshua Smith <juicewvu@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just curious why one would use natd instead of the in kernel nat available as either part of ipfw or pf.

Kernel nat for ipfirewall requires a custom kernel (GENERIC does not
have LIBALIAS).

- M