nat and firewall
jotawski at gmail.com
Fri Oct 3 03:24:44 UTC 2008
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Dominique Goncalves <
dominique.goncalves at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:09 AM, fire jotawski <jotawski at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Kevin Kinsey <kdk at daleco.biz> wrote:
> >> FBSD1 wrote:
> >>> natd_enable="YES" This statement in rc.conf enables ipfw nated
> >>> firewall_nat_enable="YES" This is an invalid statement. No such thing
> >>> you have here.
> >> This is no longer true; he did indeed find "firewall_nat_enable"
> >> in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. The knob seems to have first appeared
> >> in February in HEAD and I'm guessing it cues the system to use a
> >> new kernel-based nat rather than natd(8), but I've not read anything
> >> further about this, as my system isn't as up to date as the OP's.
> >> I don't know when this change was MFC'ed, but apparently fairly
> >> recently?
> >> I suppose we need someone a tad more "in the know" to straighten
> >> that out for us.
> > up to this moment, i do not know if natd and firewall_nat function in the
> > same or different.
> > and is there firewall_nat_flags thing too ?
> I'll try to explain,
> natd_* knobs are for natd(8), a daemon
> firewall_nat_* knobs are for ipfw(8), NAT is processed by the kernel
> firewall_nat_* was added in the begenning of year in RELENG_7
> The NAT configuration is done by /etc/rc.firewall, you can read this
> file to know how the configuration is done.
> This is two different ways to do NAT. I can't speak about performance,
> kernel vs daemon.
many thanks indeed for your clear explanations.
so we simply use just one of them but not both, do not we ?
once again, i appreciate all of your kind asistances in my case.
with best regards,
More information about the freebsd-questions