> Using natd (or ipfw nat) has the ability to manipulate the IP address
> and ports of a packet. The fwd capability in ipfw does not modify the
> layer 3 headers, but instead short-circuits the next-hop logic. Take a
> look at the fwd description in ipfw(8).
>
> I would recommend using the ipfw bu
remodeler wrote:
Is there any reason to prefer port-forwarding with ipfw (forward ipaddr) vs.
natd (-redirect_port), if I am using both subsystems in any case? I see natd
uses libalias and an ipfw divert port, so my thought is that the ipfw approach
would incur less overhead. Also, the ipfw appro
remodeler wrote:
> Is there any reason to prefer port-forwarding with ipfw (forward ipaddr) vs.
> natd (-redirect_port), if I am using both subsystems in any case? I see natd
> uses libalias and an ipfw divert port, so my thought is that the ipfw approach
> would incur less overhead. Also, the ipfw
Is there any reason to prefer port-forwarding with ipfw (forward ipaddr) vs.
natd (-redirect_port), if I am using both subsystems in any case? I see natd
uses libalias and an ipfw divert port, so my thought is that the ipfw approach
would incur less overhead. Also, the ipfw approach permits a hostn
