The conclusion so far is that ipfw1 and ipfw2 using keep-state rules
on the interface facing the public internet with divert/nated does
not work period.
Probably my post hasn't reached you yet. I think you are mistaken if you mean that keep-state rules cannot be securely used in a NAT configuration -- see two examples in my post. The mistake I believe you are making is in talking about only the public-internet facing interface. What you are trying to do is to ensure that *conversations* from anywhere on your internal network can be keep-stated when talking to the external network. But the packets *start* on the internal facing interface. It just so happens that without NAT you can ignore this bit of the conversation, but once you include it, you cannot.
In any case, my somewhat messy example which puts the keep-state on a skipto rule still manages without *looking* at the internal interface, though it does take into consideration the whole conversation.
Still would like to be proved wrong on my conclusion.
If you find any bugs in the two alternatives I posted then I would love to know.
--Alex _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
