On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 09:50:23AM -0700, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Andre Oppermann wrote:
> >
> > In the FreeBSD May-June 2002 Status Report we have announced a natd
> > rewrite to make it's configuration options more powerful and support
> > more ip addresses to nat to.
>
> I haven't had time to lo
This is great news, thank you guys.
This is what I found during my testing.
#1. Connecting from w2k behind the fbsd using VPN doesn't work. Using
the original natd does not have this problem,
#2. rdr, can we redirect udp as well?
This is my conf file,
divert port natd -> dp1
nat on dp1 from an
Andre Oppermann wrote:
>
> In the FreeBSD May-June 2002 Status Report we have announced a natd
> rewrite to make it's configuration options more powerful and support
> more ip addresses to nat to.
I haven't had time to look at the new natd yet, but the old one would
easily get into a state wher
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 08:34:35AM +0300, Ari Suutari wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Great to see natd maintained. As original author, I kind of miss
> the long command line options (ie. something like
> --daemon in addition to -d).
>
I used getopt(3) to parse the commandline because I hate to reinvent the
w
Hi,
Great to see natd maintained. As original author, I kind of miss
the long command line options (ie. something like
--daemon in addition to -d).
The new code seems to use always a select-recvfrom combination
to get the data. Someone complained to me about the old natd performance
when that wa
Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>
> > In the FreeBSD May-June 2002 Status Report we have announced a natd
> > rewrite to make it's configuration options more powerful and support
> > more ip addresses to nat to.
> >
> > The first functional preview is availab
On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> In the FreeBSD May-June 2002 Status Report we have announced a natd
> rewrite to make it's configuration options more powerful and support
> more ip addresses to nat to.
>
> The first functional preview is available here:
>
> http://diehard.n-r-
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
> Andre,
> could you briefly comment how the new libalias+natd differ
> (or are planned to differ) from the old one -- e.g. do
> they implement keepalives, move-to-front of sessions in the
> hash chains, fixe to known bugs in the old one ?
The new one has a way more powerful
Andre,
could you briefly comment how the new libalias+natd differ
(or are planned to differ) from the old one -- e.g. do
they implement keepalives, move-to-front of sessions in the
hash chains, fixe to known bugs in the old one ?
One common complaint with the old libalias is that
performance tend
