Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:20:50 +0100
From:      Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>
To:        CP4@mead.com
Cc:        questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: NATD vs. IPFILTER 
Message-ID:  <199809291420.PAA19077@woof.lan.awfulhak.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Sep 1998 09:53:11 EDT." <8525668D.004B6788.00@dayton2.mead.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Hi,
> 
> I have searched the mailing list archives but have not found a definitive
> answer for this question.
> 
> I would like to do NAT with a freebsd box. The box is a spare 486 dx2/50
> with 40 MB that I have laying around.
> What I would like to know is: Between natd and ipfilter, which is faster,
> has lower memory footprint , and uses the least amount of cpu?

I would have thought that ipfilter should be faster, implying less 
use of the cpu.  WRT the memory footprint, I have no idea - they're 
*probably* roughly the same.

However, natd does things that I'd be hugely surprised if ipfilter 
does.  Specifically, natd supports ``r''commands, non-passive FTP, 
CuSeeMe, NetBIOS & IRQ transparently.  It's also easy (and unlikely 
to be affected by OS upgrades) to add your own special protocol 
support (src/lib/libalias/alias_*.c).

> This is important to me because I also plan on running a small webserver on
> the same box and a small ( 1 host ) domain on the box.

Shouldn't be a problem with either (you probably wouldn't notice the 
speed difference).

> Thanks,
> C.P.

-- 
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org>, <brian@FreeBSD.org>, <brian@OpenBSD.org>
      <http://www.Awfulhak.org>;
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199809291420.PAA19077>