-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 nit etc wrote:
>> The real question is, why? What are you trying to >> accomplish? > >Because NAT cannot deal with all protocols. Sometimes, >my wife wants to use Netmeeting on her laptop. Yes, I >know theres a kernel patch available to support the >H.x protocol, but its buggy. > >Anyhow, I'd like to know if there is a solution to my >question, regardless of how good a idea it is. Ok, fair enough. Since you have a good reason to NAT-not, you're stuck with only two possible nodes anyway, so why not just use individual firewalls on the workstations? Yes, I know, I prefer to have something in front of a Winbox if possible, but the alternative is probably dhcrelay (see the man page for it). Trouble is, even if it works, you'd need two more IP addresses, one inside and one out, on the gateway. I've never gone down that road, myself ... Cheers -d - -- David Talkington PGP key: http://www.prairienet.org/~dtalk/0xCA4C11AD.pgp - -- http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/pale_blue_dot.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.5.8 Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6 iQA/AwUBPEOCSr9BpdPKTBGtEQL/tgCcC3z+2XIiqF9W1fMQHRKGV71pQVAAn2G1 gUyKRNYDrMEGnUOzmJYZA8Gm =FGCo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
