On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 02:38:35PM +0300, Iasen Kostov wrote: > Have you done any performace comparisons with pf's NAT ? I realy would > prefer libalias based kernel NAT than pf because libalias works better > with ftp, irc dcc and things like that (VoIP would be nice too :P ). So > the only reason I've not put it in production is because its to new and > untested but as soon as I upgrade mine home to 6.x router I'll test it > more extensivly.
no performance comparison (at least not yet), but i don't expect NAT to be a real bottleneck. Anyway, if we find it's dead slow, i'll fix it :) > Btw what is the status of the multi-session to the same > point PPTP NAT (e.g call ID tracking) ? i didn't modify the protocol specific nat support, so it's just like with natd. btw a brave guy (Hi Patrick! :) switched 4 boxes (i386 and amd64, UP and SMP) from natd to ipfw's nat and everything went smooth, except for a little bug that i'm tracking down... sounds good to me! :) bye -- Paolo "le influenze esterne sono troppe, il mondo reale non e' mica quello fatato dei komunisti :-p" - Anonymous Lumbard _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
