Hello Chuck,
I was wondering if someone could help me answer some questions I have concerning IPFW
vs. natd I am trying to allow my FreeBSD 4.10 gateway to perform port forwarding for
SSH, SQL*Net and Webservice (Web not as important yet).
I wanted to know if I can use IPFW as opposed to natd to redirect or pass TCP & UDP
(is ICMP out of the question???) to a remote location. Gateway::192.0.0.1:22 -->
remote server 192.0.0.5:22 or 192.0.0.5:9881 for instance. From the configuration of
ipfw it appears that it can be done instead of using natd.
Any suggestions or corrections of my logic welcome. Thanks in advance.
HZS
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Aug 3, 2004 12:40 PM
To: "Hakim Z. Singhji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Questions on IPFW???
Hakim Z. Singhji wrote:
> Question, when NAT overloading is it possible to use only IPFW rules to
> pass TCP/UDP packects to remote ip addresses within the network?
I don't know what "NAT overloading" means.
It is possible to use only IPFW rules to pass TCP & UDP packets from one
interface to another using the fwd action. However, note that:
The fwd action does not change the contents of the packet at all.
In particular, the destination address remains unmodified, so
packets forwarded to another system will usually be rejected by
that system unless there is a matching rule on that system to
capture them. For packets forwarded locally, the local address
of the socket will be set to the original destination address of
the packet. This makes the netstat(1) entry look rather weird
but is intended for use with transparent proxy servers.
> Or do you have to use natd...because IPFW allows you to execute
> the following for example:
> ****************************************************
> ip from 192.168.99.100 80 to 192.168.99.101 9981
> ****************************************************
That's the body of an IPFW rule which matches packets with those attributes.
Without an action ("allow", "deny", "fwd"), what you've written isn't a
complete rule: it doesn't mean anything by itself.
> or even in conjunction with a dummynet rule of somesort?
Um. Do you understand the question you are asking?
I don't-- perhaps try using a complete sentence. Better yet, why don't you
tell us what your network looks like and what you want to do. You most likely
will receive answers which are more specific and more useful to you...
--
-Chuck
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
