Performance improvement for NAT in IPFIREWALL

[Chuck Swiger]

Michael Sierchio wrote:
> Barney Wolff wrote:
>> NAT is not a security feature,
> 
> Many would disagree with that assertion.

Many people are wrong, then.  NAT is not a security feature.

Check the list archives of <firewall-wizards at honor.icsalabs.com>...

[ ... ]
>> If you believe you need to NAT at even 1Gb, I'd look
>> very hard at the requirements.
> 
> Sadly, requirements are often exogenous.

Nice word.  :-)

[ NAT sucks.  In a very useful way, of course.  Exogenous requirements may 
impose unreasonable constraints upon implementing the technically preferrable 
solution, just as "inept excess verbiage may disqualify qualifiers".  And "But 
soft, what light through yonder window breaks?" and other tasty bits from the 
"Applesoft Reference Manual".... ]

-- 
-Chuck