I know that ssh does a reverse dns lookup of the ip you connect from -
no matter if its local or not.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Christopher J. Ruwe c...@cruwe.de wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:23:56 -0400
Robert Huff roberth...@rcn.com wrote:
Christopher J. Ruwe writes:
On a KVM
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:23:56 -0400
Robert Huff roberth...@rcn.com wrote:
Christopher J. Ruwe writes:
On a KVM virtualized host, I run FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p3 and some
qjails, 8.3-RELEASE. The jails are connected all via lo0 on
10.0.0.0.
While by the large working as expected,
On a KVM virtualized host, I run FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p3 and some qjails,
8.3-RELEASE. The jails are connected all via lo0 on 10.0.0.0.
While by the large working as expected, I have noticed one pecularity I
have failed to pinpoint: When launching processes with some network
interaction, like
Christopher J. Ruwe writes:
On a KVM virtualized host, I run FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p3 and some
qjails, 8.3-RELEASE. The jails are connected all via lo0 on
10.0.0.0.
While by the large working as expected, I have noticed one
pecularity I have failed to pinpoint: When launching
Hi, I have a firewall for NAT operations only. While doing NAT, server
crashes. Below you can find the required info about my problem. Thanks.
Some useful info about my NAT server:
FreeBSD xxx.cc.boun.edu.tr 7.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.3-RELEASE #2: Fri Sep
17 15:09:54 EEST 2010
Hi, I have a firewall for NAT operations only. While doing NAT, server
crashes. Below you can find the required info about my problem. Thanks.
Some useful info about my NAT server:
FreeBSD xxx.cc.boun.edu.tr 7.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.3-RELEASE #2: Fri Sep
17 15:09:54 EEST 2010
I'm straggling to get my FTP to work
I'm running jail on my FreeBSD with proftpd and I use ipnat to forward
any requests to my box to that jail for that service
this is what i put inside of my ipnat.conf
rdr bce0 64.237.55.65/27 - lama proxy port ftp ftp/tcp
64.237.55.65/27 this is my public
I'm running system with 2 jails
host runs named
1st jail runs mail
2nd jail runs web
jails needs to be able to reach out to outside world, for example mail
server needs to be able to communicate with remote server
for that i decided to use ipnat, here is rule i used
map bce0 mx - mx
same goes
decided to use ipnat, here is rule i used
map bce0 mx - mx
same goes for web
but after activating these rules my host itself is not able to reach
out to anything remote..
--
http://alexus.org/
the other thing is on host, and thats after few mintues i reload ipnat
dd# ipnat -s
mapped
/ipnat reload
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: checkyesno: ipnat_enable is set to YES.
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: run_rc_command: doit: /sbin/ipnat -F -C -f
/etc/ipnat.rules
0 entries flushed from NAT table
2 entries flushed from NAT list
syntax error error at port-range, line 8
# grep port-range /etc
Le Sun, 17 May 2009 16:16:51 -0400,
alexus ale...@gmail.com:
i dont see how things are obvious for you as they not so obvious for
me. first of all my ipf default policy to allow everything.
so the original question is for ipnat and not for ipf
now for non-passive (active) i put
# /etc/rc.d/ipnat reload
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: checkyesno: ipnat_enable is set to YES.
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: run_rc_command: doit: /sbin/ipnat -F -C -f
/etc/ipnat.rules
0 entries flushed from NAT table
2 entries flushed from NAT list
syntax error error at port-range, line 8
# grep port-range /etc
2009/5/17 Patrick Lamaizière patf...@davenulle.org:
Le Sun, 17 May 2009 16:16:51 -0400,
alexus ale...@gmail.com:
i dont see how things are obvious for you as they not so obvious for
me. first of all my ipf default policy to allow everything.
so the original question is for ipnat
wrote:
i need to redirect bunch of ports, or port-range from outside to my
jail
# /etc/rc.d/ipnat reload
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: checkyesno: ipnat_enable is set to YES.
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: run_rc_command: doit: /sbin/ipnat -F -C -f
/etc/ipnat.rules
0 entries flushed from NAT table
2
Odhiambo ワシントン skrev:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:09 PM, alexus ale...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM, alexus ale...@gmail.com wrote:
i need to redirect bunch of ports, or port-range from outside to my jail
# /etc/rc.d/ipnat reload
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: checkyesno
2009/5/14 Odhiambo ワシントン odhia...@gmail.com:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:09 PM, alexus ale...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM, alexus ale...@gmail.com wrote:
i need to redirect bunch of ports, or port-range from outside to my jail
# /etc/rc.d/ipnat reload
/etc/rc.d
# /etc/rc.d/ipnat reload
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: checkyesno: ipnat_enable is set to YES.
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: run_rc_command: doit: /sbin/ipnat -F -C -f
/etc/ipnat.rules
0 entries flushed from NAT table
2 entries flushed from NAT list
syntax error error at port-range, line
alexus said the following on 2009-05-13 20:09:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM, alexus ale...@gmail.com wrote:
i need to redirect bunch of ports, or port-range from outside to my jail
# /etc/rc.d/ipnat reload
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: checkyesno: ipnat_enable is set to YES.
/etc/rc.d/ipnat
i need to redirect bunch of ports, or port-range from outside to my jail
# /etc/rc.d/ipnat reload
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: checkyesno: ipnat_enable is set to YES.
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: run_rc_command: doit: /sbin/ipnat -F -C -f
/etc/ipnat.rules
0 entries flushed from NAT table
2 entries flushed
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM, alexus ale...@gmail.com wrote:
i need to redirect bunch of ports, or port-range from outside to my jail
# /etc/rc.d/ipnat reload
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: checkyesno: ipnat_enable is set to YES.
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: run_rc_command: doit: /sbin/ipnat -F -C -f
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:09 PM, alexus ale...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM, alexus ale...@gmail.com wrote:
i need to redirect bunch of ports, or port-range from outside to my jail
# /etc/rc.d/ipnat reload
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: checkyesno: ipnat_enable is set
for the
rest of the network
em0 is my external, em1 is my internal and em2 is my DMZ
I am using ipf and ipnat to get access to the internet, but I am
having an issue.
I am able to get to the internet via nat on both em1 and em2.
I am able to get port/IP redriection working from em0 - em2
I can
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Steve Krawcke
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:08 PM
To: mail.list freebsd-questions
Subject: ipnat dmz/internal network issue
I have a gateway setup wing freebsd 7.1
I am attempting to route local and external traffic to a second machine
on port 85 to apache.
The redirection works for external traffic coming in but I cannot seem
to redirect local traffic to the secondary machine.
Here are my ipnat rules;
rdr fxp0 0/0 port 85 - 192.168.1.10 port 85
rdr tun0
David Banning skrev:
I am attempting to route local and external traffic to a second machine
on port 85 to apache.
The redirection works for external traffic coming in but I cannot seem
to redirect local traffic to the secondary machine.
Here are my ipnat rules;
rdr fxp0 0/0 port 85
to redirect local traffic to the secondary machine.
Here are my ipnat rules;
rdr fxp0 0/0 port 85 - 192.168.1.10 port 85
rdr tun0 0/0 port 85 - 192.168.1.10 port 85
rdr dc0 0/0 port 80 - 192.168.1.1 port 8180
where 192.168.1.1 is the local machine and 192.168.1.10 is the
secondary machine
the third
i've asked this question before, but i must have been unclear. i hope this
is better:
i'm puzzled by how ipnat works, particularly by the fact that when the ip's
on an inside nic are mapped to the ip on my outside nic, i have to configure
ipfilter to allow any ip that might hit the outside nic
updating my system friday from the feb 7 version of 7.1 to the latest broke
tcp and udp (but *not* icmp) over ipnat, which had worked forever with my
current ipfilter rules and ipnat mapping rules, which are pretty simple.
what has changed?
/etc/ipnat.rules:
map age0 10.0.0.0/24
+++ dacoder [01/03/09 13:17 -0500]:
updating my system friday from the feb 7 version of 7.1 to the latest broke
tcp and udp (but *not* icmp) over ipnat, which had worked forever with my
current ipfilter rules and ipnat mapping rules, which are pretty simple.
what has changed?
/etc/ipnat.rules
*ping*
From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org on behalf of Michael VanLoon
Sent: Thu 1/22/2009 3:43 PM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Dumb ipnat question
I have built a simple 7.1 system in a VM. I built a custom kernel that is
basically
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Michael VanLoon
micha...@noncomposmentis.net wrote:
I have built a simple 7.1 system in a VM. I built a custom kernel that is
basically GENERIC minus some hardware stuff I don't need, plus a few things
that look cool.
When I attempt to run the ipnat command
From: Odhiambo Washington [mailto:odhia...@gmail.com]
Sent: Fri 1/23/2009 6:39 AM
To: Michael VanLoon
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Dumb ipnat question
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Michael VanLoon micha...@noncomposmentis.net
wrote:
I have built a simple 7.1
I have built a simple 7.1 system in a VM. I built a custom kernel that is
basically GENERIC minus some hardware stuff I don't need, plus a few things
that look cool.
When I attempt to run the ipnat command, I get the error:
/dev/ipnat: open: No such file or directory
Sure enough
Hi,
I'm using release 7.0 and looking for an idea to flush one specific
active ipnat session, such like these one:
MAP 192.168.0.8142667 - - 82.229.222.721746 [88.191.60.158 993]
MAP 192.168.0.8140045 - - 82.229.222.744303 [66.163.181.189 5050]
MAP 192.168.0.8147082
Hi.
Does anybody know how to make ipnat map/or proxying pptp traffic ?
Problem is:
mpd server with pptp - somwhere in internet.
Gateway with ipnat.
Clients behind gateway can not access pptp server at same time.
I found something like:
map bce1 0/0 - 0/0 proxy port 1723 pptp/tcp
but it doesn`t
Uses pf instead but I know the following works:
### /etc/pf.conf ###
nat on dc0 from fxp0:network to any - (dc0)
### /etc/rc.conf ###
pf_enable=YES
After editing the files, run '/etc/rc.d/pf start'
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
figure something out, maybe someone can help me...
i have two interfaces on my 7.0-RELEASE-p1 dc0 and fxp0, dc0 has
public IP, and fxp0 is internal, my ipnat.rules looks like this
map dc0 192.168.2.0/24 - 0/32
su-3.2# ipnat -l
List of active MAP/Redirect filters:
map dc0 192.168.2.0/24
hi
i cant figure something out, maybe someone can help me...
i have two interfaces on my 7.0-RELEASE-p1 dc0 and fxp0, dc0 has
public IP, and fxp0 is internal, my ipnat.rules looks like this
map dc0 192.168.2.0/24 - 0/32
su-3.2# ipnat -l
List of active MAP/Redirect filters:
map dc0 192.168.2.0
su-3.2# ipnat -l
List of active MAP/Redirect filters:
map fxp0 172.16.172.16/32 - 0.0.0.0/32
rdr fxp0 0.0.0.0/0 port 22 - 172.16.172.16 port 22 tcp
List of active sessions:
su-3.2#
this configuration seems to be working just like i wanted it, i just
wanted to make sure its correct in terms
i can't seem to figure this out
su-3.2# ipnat -l
List of active MAP/Redirect filters:
rdr fxp0 0.0.0.0/32 port 22 - 172.16.172.16 port 22 tcp
List of active sessions:
su-3.2# netstat -tan | grep LISTEN | grep 22
tcp4 0 0 172.16.172.16.22 *.*LISTEN
su-3.2
anyone?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM, alexus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i can't seem to figure this out
su-3.2# ipnat -l
List of active MAP/Redirect filters:
rdr fxp0 0.0.0.0/32 port 22 - 172.16.172.16 port 22 tcp
List of active sessions:
su-3.2# netstat -tan | grep LISTEN | grep 22
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de alexus
Envoyé : mercredi 30 avril 2008 03:35
À : freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Objet : Re: ipnat
anyone?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM, alexus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i can't seem to figure this out
su-3.2# ipnat -l
List of active MAP/Redirect filters
On 27/11/2007, at 5:49 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jerahmy Pocott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 4:48 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Difficulties establishing VPN tunnel with IPNAT
Perhaps, but I'v heard
-Original Message-
From: Jerahmy Pocott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 7:07 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Difficulties establishing VPN tunnel with IPNAT
On 27/11/2007, at 5:49 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote
-Original Message-
From: Jerahmy Pocott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 4:48 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Difficulties establishing VPN tunnel with IPNAT
Perhaps, but I'v heard a lot of good things about IPF and IPNAT
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Roger Olofsson
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:09 PM
To: Jerahmy Pocott
Cc: FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Difficulties establishing VPN tunnel with IPNAT
Hello again Jerahmy,
I would suggest
Well the main reason is that it was part of IPF, and IPF seemed to be
better
than IPFW? So when trying out IPF I also used IPNAT.. I had no problems
with natd but it seemed I should use the IPNAT if I was using IPF?
On 25/11/2007, at 8:00 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
The other thing you can
like IPSEC (IP
protocol 50) and possibly port 500 (IKE) for which you will have to
activate the ipnat proxy.
map WAN internal_ip/24 - 0.0.0.0/32 proxy port 500 ipsec/udp
You might also try to disable the blocking of fragged packets. For
some VPN clients this can cause problems.
Good luck
,
clearly, in your case, it's WORSE.
Ted
-Original Message-
From: Jerahmy Pocott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 2:12 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: Roger Olofsson; FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Difficulties establishing VPN tunnel with IPNAT
Well the main
Perhaps, but I'v heard a lot of good things about IPF and IPNAT,
especially since the nat is all in kernel where as natd is userland, so
there is a slight performance boost possibly there as well..
It is not difficult to switch back to my old set up, but I thought I
would
give it a chance
is using a protocol like IPSEC (IP
protocol 50) and possibly port 500 (IKE) for which you will have to
activate the ipnat proxy.
map WAN internal_ip/24 - 0.0.0.0/32 proxy port 500 ipsec/udp
You might also try to disable the blocking of fragged packets. For
some VPN clients this can cause problems
On 26/11/2007, at 1:00 AM, Roger Olofsson wrote:
Hello Jerahmy, (sorry for top-posting, btw).
Gre is protocol 47. In your firewall rules you only allow/block
protocols tcp/udp/icmp. If you want to use PPTP you will need to
allow both the port and the protocol for it.
I put:
pass out
Jerahmy Pocott skrev:
On 26/11/2007, at 1:00 AM, Roger Olofsson wrote:
Hello Jerahmy, (sorry for top-posting, btw).
Gre is protocol 47. In your firewall rules you only allow/block
protocols tcp/udp/icmp. If you want to use PPTP you will need to allow
both the port and the protocol for
On 26/11/2007, at 4:47 AM, Roger Olofsson wrote:
Hello Jerahmy,
Some progress it seems? Why not set it to allow gre from VPN server
only? Ie pass in quick on fxp1 proto gre from vpn server ip to any?
The way you ask your question, 'make it work without static ip or
allowing all traffic',
Jerahmy Pocott skrev:
On 26/11/2007, at 4:47 AM, Roger Olofsson wrote:
Hello Jerahmy,
Some progress it seems? Why not set it to allow gre from VPN server
only? Ie pass in quick on fxp1 proto gre from vpn server ip to any?
The way you ask your question, 'make it work without static ip or
Hello,
I recently decided to give ipf and ipnat a try, previously I had
always been using
ipfw and natd. Since switching over I can no longer establish a VPN
tunnel from
any system behind the gateway.
I did 'ipf -F a' to flush all rules but I was still unable to connect
so I think it's
Hello Jerahmy,
Assuming you want to connect from the outside to your VPN.
Have you made sure that port 2401 is open for inbound traffic in your
ipf.rules?
You might also want to do 'ipnat -C -f path to ipnat.rules'. Man ipnat ;^)
Greeting from Sweden
/Roger
Jerahmy Pocott skrev:
Hello
Sorry, the issue is connecting TO any out side VPN, not connecting from
outside.
I tested with ipf set to accept all and it still failed, so I figured
it must be ipnat..
I had no issues when using ipfw/natd.
On 25/11/2007, at 12:50 AM, Roger Olofsson wrote:
Hello Jerahmy,
Assuming you
traffic on
that port, but
users are getting connection refused messages.
I will include my ipf rules, I clearly need some sort of rule to
allow inbound for
the VPN to work, though I think the ipnat is breaking the Sonic Wall
client. Which
is strange because everything worked fine with ipfw
protocol 50) and possibly port 500 (IKE) for which you will have to
activate the ipnat proxy.
map WAN internal_ip/24 - 0.0.0.0/32 proxy port 500 ipsec/udp
You might also try to disable the blocking of fragged packets. For some
VPN clients this can cause problems.
Good luck!
/Roger
We have a box doing routing and NAT using IPNAT that freezes up after a couple
days. We have swapped out the Box with a different model and continue to
see the same problem. Symptoms are that the machine no longer passes
traffic and the console is unresponsive to any keyboard input
facility). The problem I'm having is that it's a fairly
well-trafficked site. The ipnat entries table fills up quickly (30,000
I think is the max), and so I have to ipnat -F fairly often (every 5
minutes or so). The problem with this is that it kills any outgoing
connections (like my mysql replication
facility). The problem I'm having is that it's a fairly
well-trafficked site. The ipnat entries table fills up quickly (30,000
I think is the max), and so I have to ipnat -F fairly often (every 5
minutes or so). The problem with this is that it kills any outgoing
connections (like my mysql replication
Just wondering if i need IPNAT and gateway_enabled=YES in my rc.conf file? It
is a stand alone server so does not need to route any packets but does run
proftpd.
Can i just have ipf running or do i need ipnat too in this situation
--
Computer King CaN Mail - Sales Service Hosting Backup
NO, You only need IPNAT and gateway_enabled=YES in your rc.conf file if you
have a LAN behind your FBSD system
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of RYAN M. vAN GINNEKEN
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 2:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IPNAT
I use IPFilter firewall and I need to remap only packets with specified
port in destination. Other traffic should not be remapped.
IPNAT(5) says following:
Matching of packets has now been extended to allow more complex compares. In
place of the address which is to be translated, an IP
On 1/6/07, Michael P. Soulier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a simple port-forwarding rule that I want to work from my
gateway to a box on my LAN, but it doesn't seem to be working.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ sudo ipnat -l
Password:
List of active MAP/Redirect filters:
rdr tun0 0.0.0.0/32 port 6882
I have a simple port-forwarding rule that I want to work from my
gateway to a box on my LAN, but it doesn't seem to be working.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ sudo ipnat -l
Password:
List of active MAP/Redirect filters:
rdr tun0 0.0.0.0/32 port 6882 - 192.168.1.3 port 6882 tcp
Trying to telnet to port
using:
ppp -ddial -nat profile
How does the -nat flag implement nat for PPPoE ? Using ipfw/natd,
ipnat/ipfilter, and is it hard-coded or can it be optionally changed?
Can I use rules created for/through ipfilter/ipnat, or should I simply
disable NAT translation on the ppp interface
Answer found, NAT implemented using libalias library: man 3 libalias
--
Nathan Vidican
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:59:29 -0400, Nathan Vidican wrote
using:
ppp -ddial -nat profile
How does the -nat flag implement nat for PPPoE ? Using ipfw/natd,
ipnat/ipfilter
Nikos, thank you. I appended mssclamp 1440 in ipf.rule, it works
now! And I have tried not use it but add set link mtu 1440 in mpd.conf, and
failed. Yes, the problem occurs when NATing, and mssclamp 1440 is the key.
fbsd, thank you anyway.
Arnold Lee
2006 -04-14
I am in a small lan and want to use fb 6.0 as a router to share internet
access. I use mpd 3.18 to dial adsl on demand. I configured ipnat with :
map rl0 10.0.0.0/8 - 0.0.0.0/32 portmap tcp/udp auto
map rl0 10.0.0.0/8 - 0.0.0.0/32
And then I use my client compute(windows 2000 Pro) to access
There is nothing wrong with FreeBSD 6.0
It's the way you activated ipf that is wrong.
Ipfilter's ipnat function is not an independent function.
You have to code this in rc.conf
ipfilter_enable = YES
ipnat_enable = YES
and make sure there is no default ipf.rules file
Then ipf will use its default
On Wednesday 12 April 2006 11:34, Arnold Lee wrote:
I am in a small lan and want to use fb 6.0 as a router to share internet
access. I use mpd 3.18 to dial adsl on demand. I configured ipnat with :
map rl0 10.0.0.0/8 - 0.0.0.0/32 portmap tcp/udp auto
map rl0 10.0.0.0/8 - 0.0.0.0/32
Erik Nørgaard wrote:
.. snip ..
Well, my suggestion is not to exhaust your precious /28 address space
right away. And don't make your life unnecessary difficult, why choose
the addreses in the middle for bimap?
Rather than using all your external ip's right away I would save some
for
Juergen Heberling wrote:
Due to historical reasons I can not just take a /29 or /30 block out of
the middle of the cidr I will ultimately use -- this FreeBSD server will
implement a firewall on an existing connection replacing an old Cisco
router that only NAT'd. So I will see if things can
You can use this format of the ipnat map command
map dc0 10.0.10.1/29 - 20.20.20.5-20.20.20.7
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Erik Norgaard
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 7:45 AM
To: Juergen Heberling
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject
fbsd_user wrote:
You can use this format of the ipnat map command
map dc0 10.0.10.1/29 - 20.20.20.5-20.20.20.7
.. snip ..
The above version of the command also results in a syntax error at the -.
Juergen
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing
Juergen Heberling wrote:
/etc/ipnat.rules contains:
map em0 192.168.1.0/24 - 204.134.75.1-10
.. snip ..
I tried your suggestion of using the cidr notation format and that work;
thank you!
However I am concerned about overlapping mappings in the cidr range with
host-to-host maps - my cidr
Could someone please check me on this ...
fw1# ipnat -CFn -f /etc/ipnat.rules
0 entries flushed from NAT table
1 entries flushed from NAT list
syntax error error at -, line 1
/etc/ipnat.rules contains:
map em0 192.168.1.0/24 - 204.134.75.1-10
.. snip ..
line 1 in the rules file is the example
Juergen Heberling wrote:
Could someone please check me on this ...
fw1# ipnat -CFn -f /etc/ipnat.rules
0 entries flushed from NAT table
1 entries flushed from NAT list
syntax error error at -, line 1
/etc/ipnat.rules contains:
map em0 192.168.1.0/24 - 204.134.75.1-10
.. snip ..
line 1
Erik Nørgaard wrote:
Juergen Heberling wrote:
Could someone please check me on this ...
fw1# ipnat -CFn -f /etc/ipnat.rules
0 entries flushed from NAT table
1 entries flushed from NAT list
syntax error error at -, line 1
/etc/ipnat.rules contains:
map em0 192.168.1.0/24 - 204.134.75.1-10
to the
internet. The situation is still the same.
I have tried to do
- ipf -Fa -f /etc/ipf.rules; ipnat -FC -f /etc/ipnat.rules - Didnt help
- cd /etc/rc.d; ./ipfilter restart; ./ipnat restart - Didnt help
- Launch ettercap again and exit cleanly after telling it to stop sniffing.
A tcpdump reveals that, indeed
to the
internet. The situation is still the same.
I have tried to do
- ipf -Fa -f /etc/ipf.rules; ipnat -FC -f /etc/ipnat.rules - Didnt help
- cd /etc/rc.d; ./ipfilter restart; ./ipnat restart - Didnt help
- Launch ettercap again and exit cleanly after telling it to stop sniffing.
A tcpdump reveals that, indeed
on myself.
But I didnt notice if the routing stopped at that point, or later, because I
could always connect to my server, and the server could always connect to
the
internet. The situation is still the same.
I have tried to do
- ipf -Fa -f /etc/ipf.rules; ipnat -FC -f /etc/ipnat.rules
at that point, or later, because I
could always connect to my server, and the server could always connect to the
internet. The situation is still the same.
I have tried to do
- ipf -Fa -f /etc/ipf.rules; ipnat -FC -f /etc/ipnat.rules - Didnt help
- cd /etc/rc.d; ./ipfilter restart; ./ipnat restart
to the
internet. The situation is still the same.
I have tried to do
- ipf -Fa -f /etc/ipf.rules; ipnat -FC -f /etc/ipnat.rules - Didnt help
- cd /etc/rc.d; ./ipfilter restart; ./ipnat restart - Didnt help
- Launch ettercap again and exit cleanly after telling it to stop sniffing.
A tcpdump reveals that, indeed
connect to the
internet. The situation is still the same.
I have tried to do
- ipf -Fa -f /etc/ipf.rules; ipnat -FC -f /etc/ipnat.rules - Didnt help
- cd /etc/rc.d; ./ipfilter restart; ./ipnat restart - Didnt help
- Launch ettercap again and exit cleanly after telling it to stop sniffing.
A tcpdump
I have a FreeBSD firewall which does packet filtering and NAT.
The internal address range is 172.16.64.0/24. The only filtering
is incoming on the external NIC, fxp0.
The machine also runs mpd for remote access.
By pure chance I was tailing ipf.log when I connected an XP laptop
to the mpd
Hello,
I have my FreeBSD 5.4 box with 3 NIC :
Xl0 LAN with network 10.0.0.0/8 and 192.168.0.0/30
VR0 Wan 84.96.23.106/32
VR1 LAN with network 192.168.0.32/27 and 192.168.0.96/27
I use IPNAT and Ip filter.
I'm doing NAT from Xl0 to Vr0, it's working fine
I'm trying to do the same thing
You have ipnat statements wrong. should be liked this
map vr0 10.0.0.0/8 - 0.32 proxy port ftp ftp/tcp
map vr0 10.0.0.0/8 - 0.32 portmap tcp/udp 2:6
map vr0 10.0.0.0/8 - 0.32
map vr0 192.168.0.0/30 - 0.32 portmap tcp/udp auto
map vr0 192.168.0.32/27 - 0.32 portmap tcp/udp auto
map vr0
Thanks you, it's working !
But why using vr0 instead of vr1 for map instruction ? Network
192.168.0.32/27 is attach to vr1 not vr0 ...
Is it an IPNat mystery or have you an answer ?
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de fbsd_user
Envoyé
answer is that is the syntax of the ipnat rules.
read the handbook its all there.
vr0 is the interface faceing the public internet just like syntax
requires
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of cedric
Gross
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:54
On 1/3/06, fbsd_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/2/06, fbsd_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see tun in your ipnat rule.
That means you are using ppp for phone dialup connection.
Every time you lose your phone connection you get different IP
from
your ISP.
Use NAT function of PPP
On 1/2/06, fbsd_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see tun in your ipnat rule.
That means you are using ppp for phone dialup connection.
Every time you lose your phone connection you get different IP
from
your ISP.
Use NAT function of PPP and not ipnat and your problem will go
away
I see tun in your ipnat rule.
That means you are using ppp for phone dialup connection.
Every time you lose your phone connection you get different IP from
your ISP.
Use NAT function of PPP and not ipnat and your problem will go away.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto
On 1/2/06, fbsd_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see tun in your ipnat rule.
That means you are using ppp for phone dialup connection.
Every time you lose your phone connection you get different IP from
your ISP.
Use NAT function of PPP and not ipnat and your problem will go away
in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
wrote perikillo thusly...
root#chmod +x /etc/rc.d/ipnat.rules
Why did you need to add execute bit for the rules?
- Parv
--
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On 1/1/06, Parv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
wrote perikillo thusly...
root#chmod +x /etc/rc.d/ipnat.rules
Why did you need to add execute bit for the rules?
- Parv
--
Hi Parv.
No, the file name is ipnat.bug, i make one mistake here. The
rules
On 12/30/05, Ruben Bloemgarten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Caleb,
Add ipfs_enable=YES.
Regards,
Ruben
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of caleb
Sent: December 31, 2005 3:16 AM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: ipnat -CF -f
1 - 100 of 219 matches
Mail list logo
