Re: [LARTC] IPRoute2 vs Iptables

Wennie V. Lagmay Tue, 17 May 2005 00:18:06 -0700

Your right Peter, I do my own testing and found out that iptables is not a system or cpu sucker.

wennie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Surda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [LARTC] IPRoute2 vs Iptables

On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 03:40:05PM +0300, Wennie V. Lagmay wrote:
Hi all,
hi
As I read into the forum, NATting (SNAT) is expensive, using iptables to
translate IP sucks the performance of the system.
Who says that? I never experienced this even on large networks. In fact I saw cisco's NAT repeatedly freeze while an old pentium with linux was doing fine in the same situation.
BTW iproute's NAT was apparently disabled some time ago because there were
problems. I think it's mentioned in the docs.
Wennie
Bye,
Peter Surda (Shurdeek) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ICQ 10236103, +436505122023

-- The product Microsoft sells isn't the software; it's comfort. The product that Linux vendors usually sell is freedom. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc


_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] IPRoute2 vs Iptables

Reply via email to