Re: Firewall

Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2007-Apr-28 07:08:18 -0500, Jack Barnett <jackbarnett@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I plan on using NAT so both internal networks can get to the internets.

In the FreeBSD documentation I see there are 3 firewalls, IPFIREWALL,
IPFILTER and PF (BF?). I just need to do basic filtering and just a few
port forwards. Nothing to fancy. Which one would be recommended?

Basically any of them will do what you want. The major differences are:
- IPFW (IPFIREWALL) is FreeBSD only. Note that the NAT is in userland.

though that is just fine for your average DSL link.. it is in kernel in 7.0

- IPfilter is the most portable.
- PF runs on *BSD. Note that (AFAIK) all proxies (eg FTP) are in userland.

Userland NAT or proxies incur significantly higher overheads than
in-kernel equivalents (because the packets have to cross the
kernel/userland barrier twice). This may be an issue if you have a
very fast Internet connection and an underpowered firewall.


_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Firewall
    ... In the FreeBSD documentation I see there are 3 firewalls, IPFIREWALL, ... Note that the NAT is in userland. ...
    (freebsd-net)
  • Re: Firewall
    ... In the FreeBSD documentation I see there are 3 firewalls, IPFIREWALL, ... IPfilter is the most portable. ...
    (freebsd-net)