From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ramin Dousti Subject: Re: STATELESS Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:50:01 -0400 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <20030916155001.GE16559@cannon.eng.us.uu.net> References: <02ba01c37c46$bb7a5f60$798014ac@matthew> <200309161256.15286.gdh@acentral.co.uk> <1063716386.31093.160.camel@raylinux.internal> <20030916131153.GA16559@cannon.eng.us.uu.net> <1063720447.31093.166.camel@raylinux.internal> <20030916141505.GB16559@cannon.eng.us.uu.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBl?= Le Mignot Cc: Netfilter Mailing List > > OK. If you recompile without conntrack, can you do NAT? I'm just wondering? > > no, Netfilter's NAT relies upon the conntrack. > > Can I ask you why do you want to turn off the conntrack? I don't. I just wanted to learn from the people who were saying "just don't load the ip_conntrack..." Ramin > If it's for > speed or memory reasons, then using NAT will have a similar overhead > (maybe not exactly the same, but similar) anyway. When you NAT a > connection, you're forced to keep track of the connection a way or > another, to NAT further packets of the connection the same way.