> On 25 Jun 2015, at 15:46, Marko Cupać wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:17:15 -0400
> Michel Blais wrote:
>
>> The solution seem his explain on this link
>>
>> http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/rdr.html#reflect
>
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:50:42 +0100
> Andy Lemin wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We do
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:17:15 -0400
Michel Blais wrote:
> The solution seem his explain on this link
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/rdr.html#reflect
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:50:42 +0100
Andy Lemin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We do exactly the same thing for our wifi network. Users on wifi can
> *only*
Hi,
We do exactly the same thing for our wifi network. Users on wifi can *only*
use public IP addresses.
The solution is easy, you just have to consider where you do your nat'ing;
You can't do bin-at, so you will need nat-to and rdr-to rules to make it
work.
E.g. The following line translates t
The solution seem his explain on this link
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/rdr.html#reflect
Message d'origine
De: Marko Cupać
Envoyé: mercredi 24 juin 2015 07:21
À: misc@openbsd.org
Objet: pf nat and routing question
Hi,
my setup is actually more complicated, but for purpose of this m
Hi,
my setup is actually more complicated, but for purpose of this mail I
am going to try and keep it simple.
My firewall redirects requests to some service from the Internet to
server on private network:
pass in on $ext_if inet proto tcp from any to $srv-pub port $service rdr-to
$srv-priv
Int
On 11/10/14, 2:46 PM, Peter Hessler wrote:
> As I said before.
>
> _This_ _Is_ _Not_ _Possible_.
>
> Period.
>
>
Wellif you're doing bridging on the Linux setup you're trying to
replace, but don't realize it, forget to mention that the Cisco actually
*does* have an address in the /29 the Free/O
As I said before.
_This_ _Is_ _Not_ _Possible_.
Period.
On 2014 Nov 10 (Mon) at 17:30:50 -0200 (-0200), "Dante F. B. Col?" wrote:
:Hi
:
:This is a part of the output containing the static routes related to
:*bnx0* , *bnx1 *, i was trying to make a static route for the
:189.92.72.11 pointing t
Hi
This is a part of the output containing the static routes related to
*bnx0* , *bnx1 *, i was trying to make a static route for the
189.92.72.11 pointing to *bnx1* but without success, is it possible ?
below the routes is the output of ifconfig these interfaces, i'm gonna
try a bridge also.
>On 2014-11-07, li...@ggp2.com wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 07:12:20PM -0200, "Dante F. B. Col??" wrote:
>>> I'm trying to setup some static routes on a openbsd 4.9 box for some
>>> public addresses
>>
>> This usually gets mentioned, so I'll go ahead and bring this to your
>> attention.
>
>Y
On 2014-11-07, li...@ggp2.com wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 07:12:20PM -0200, "Dante F. B. Col??" wrote:
>> I'm trying to setup some static routes on a openbsd 4.9 box for some
>> public addresses
>
> This usually gets mentioned, so I'll go ahead and bring this to your
> attention.
Yes, it us
That is not supported. You MUST NOT have IPs in the same range on
different interfaces.
You can assign some /32s (or /128 if you are using IPv6) to a lo1 on the
system, but that may not be what you want.
On 2014 Nov 06 (Thu) at 19:12:20 -0200 (-0200), "Dante F. B. Col??" wrote:
:Hello everyone
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 07:12:20PM -0200, "Dante F. B. Col??" wrote:
> I'm trying to setup some static routes on a openbsd 4.9 box for some
> public addresses
This usually gets mentioned, so I'll go ahead and bring this to your
attention.
OpenBSD 4.9 is long unsupported. There have been many re
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:12:20PM EST, "Dante F. B. Colò" wrote:
> Hello everyone
Hi Dante,
> I'm trying to setup some static routes on a openbsd 4.9 box for some
> public addresses , the machine has two ethernet cards *bnx0 ***and *bnx1
> ***, *bnx0* is attached to a Cisco internet router an
Hello everyone
I'm trying to setup some static routes on a openbsd 4.9 box for some
public addresses , the machine has two ethernet cards *bnx0 ***and *bnx1
***, *bnx0* is attached to a Cisco internet router and *bnx1*** is
connected to a switch, both interfaces have public addresses of the
I am having trouble figuring out how I should configure a physical
interface and a carp virtual interface where the carp IP will serve as
a default route for hosts on the network and also hold some aliases
for server re-directs. From what I have seen the routes built at
startup "home" the route for
2011/1/10, Christoph Leser :
>
> I would like to ask:
>
> 1. Is it true, that isakmpd is supposed to accept any ID parameter of
> type IPV4_ADDR_SUBNET ) in quick mode and set up a corresponing route,
> even when it is the 'default' route?
Yes, some people want all their traffic through encrypted
2011/1/10, Christoph Leser :
> Hello,
>
> I have an IPSEC VPNs in Tunnelmode, configured in ipsec.conf with a line
> like:
>
> ike active esp tunnel from to peer
>
>
>
> My isakmpd.policy file is
>
> # cat /etc/isakmpd/isakmpd.policy
> Keynote-version: 2
> Authorizer: "POLICY"
> Conditions: a
Hello,
I have an IPSEC VPNs in Tunnelmode, configured in ipsec.conf with a line
like:
ike active esp tunnel from to peer
My isakmpd.policy file is
# cat /etc/isakmpd/isakmpd.policy
Keynote-version: 2
Authorizer: "POLICY"
Conditions: app_domain == "IPsec policy" &&
esp_present
James Shupe wrote:
Check into smtp_bind_address in Postfix. If you're still having issues,
binat rather than rdr to internal IPs so connections will originate
properly. Without seeing your pf.conf or master.cf, this is a guess, but
I think these tips should lead you in the right direction.
...ma
ix support question,
> it's a routing question)
>
> What I'm trying to accomplish is this:
> - two autonomous domains, each with their own mail server instance
> (postfix in this case) so that one domain never 'mentions' the other
> domain. Using one instance of p
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Scott McEachern wrote:
> Hi folks, I'm running into a bit of a routing gotcha getting two mail
> servers to send mail out using their own respective IP addresses. (While
> this involves postfix, this is not a postfix support question, it's a
Hi folks, I'm running into a bit of a routing gotcha getting two mail
servers to send mail out using their own respective IP addresses.
(While this involves postfix, this is not a postfix support question,
it's a routing question)
What I'm trying to accomplish is this:
-
On 2009-12-06, Alastair Johnson wrote:
> rdr pass on $ext_if1 proto tcp from $supplierIP to $CARP_ip_line1 port 443
> -> 10.0.0.50 port 443
> rdr pass on $ext_if2 proto tcp from $supplierIP to $CARP_ip_line2 port 443
> -> 10.0.0.50 port 443
This works like 'pass quick' without reply-to. Remov
We have 2 internet lines with 2 different and equally unreliable Internet
providers.
We have 2 PF firewalls running 4.6 RELEASE arranged in a failover
configuration
using CARP/pfsync. Each firewall is therefore connected to each router and
to our
internal network as well as a crossover cable betwe
the lo1 hack is no longer needed here; read OUTGOING NETWORK
ADDRESS TRANSLATION in ipsec.conf(5).
On 2009-10-29, Christoph Leser wrote:
> I'm sure I have seen the answer to my question here on the list some
> time ago, but I'm too stupid to find it again:
>
> In what order are the following oper
I'm sure I have seen the answer to my question here on the list some
time ago, but I'm too stupid to find it again:
In what order are the following operations performed on an IP packet
a. IPSEC ( decides whether a packet matches an IPSEC flow )
b. normal kernel routing
c. NAT
d. packet filtering
On 2008-06-26, openbsd misc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - how must I read the route-to / reply-to syntax?
> for example:
> pass out on $ext_if1 route-to ($ext_if2 $ext_gw2) from $ext_if2 to any
Outbound packet -> normal routing table lookup based on the
*destination* address -> if the routing tab
o:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Im Auftrag von Stuart Henderson
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Juni 2008 01:47
> An: misc@openbsd.org
> Betreff: Re: carp / routing question (multiple lines)
>
> On 2008-06-25, openbsd misc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hope I can avoid try'n
On 2008-06-25, openbsd misc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope I can avoid try'n error this way ;-) I have two firewall systems
> with carp enabled (running obsd 4.3). These gateways have two internet
> connections (dsl 6000 and symmetric 4000 provided by a router with an
> /29 transport net).
> T
Hello,
I hope I can avoid try'n error this way ;-) I have two firewall systems
with carp enabled (running obsd 4.3). These gateways have two internet
connections (dsl 6000 and symmetric 4000 provided by a router with an
/29 transport net).
The symmetric line should be used for vpn and vor mail and
On 25/03/2008, Fridiric Pli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have an openbsd router with two ebgp peers.
>
> I have serveral prefixes to announce but I would like to know how I could
> influence outcoming traffic from each of my prefix.
>
> I did not understand how to use weight, localpre
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Fridiric Pli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have an openbsd router with two ebgp peers.
>
> I have serveral prefixes to announce but I would like to know how I could
> influence outcoming traffic from each of my prefix.
>
> I did not understand how to us
Hi,
I have an openbsd router with two ebgp peers.
I have serveral prefixes to announce but I would like to know how I could
influence outcoming traffic from each of my prefix.
I did not understand how to use weight, localpref and metric nor filter
rules to do that.
any clue or example ?
many t
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:23:27PM +0100, Erich wrote:
> Claudio Jeker schrieb:
>> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 02:10:09PM +0100, Erich wrote:
>>
>>> another routing problem ist that now the ibpg routes get insertet
>>> but also announcend to the ebgp peer since its the same as and
>>> i announce "se
Claudio Jeker schrieb:
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 02:10:09PM +0100, Erich wrote:
another routing problem ist that now the ibpg routes get insertet
but also announcend to the ebgp peer since its the same as and
i announce "self" to the ebgp peers. problems is now that the
network is somewhere els
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 02:10:09PM +0100, Erich wrote:
> another routing problem ist that now the ibpg routes get insertet
> but also announcend to the ebgp peer since its the same as and
> i announce "self" to the ebgp peers. problems is now that the
> network is somewhere else, but announced so i
another routing problem ist that now the ibpg routes get insertet
but also announcend to the ebgp peer since its the same as and
i announce "self" to the ebgp peers. problems is now that the
network is somewhere else, but announced so i have created a
routing loop. do i have to use static routes o
* Erich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-28 14:06]:
> do i have to restart bgpd in order to get "ipsec esp ike" for a
> session / nei working or is a reload and nei up/down enough?
config reload and clearing the affected neighbor session is enough. I
have done that in testing many times successfully.
do i have to restart bgpd in order to get "ipsec esp ike" for a
session / nei working or is a reload and nei up/down enough?
i got
Oct 20 13:21:23 router-mt-1 isakmpd[13070]: dropped message from
xx.xx.xx.xx port 500 due to notification type NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN
and
responder_recv_HASH_SA_NONC
yes thx guys, it worked :)
Claudio Jeker schrieb:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:14:09AM +0100, Erich wrote:
i now have a session i turned on update loging ob bpgd but the routes do
not
get inserted. any ideas?
AS41412: update 123.123.123.0/24 via xxx..xx. ( the router where
the netwo
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:14:09AM +0100, Erich wrote:
> i now have a session i turned on update loging ob bpgd but the routes do
> not
> get inserted. any ideas?
>
> AS41412: update 123.123.123.0/24 via xxx..xx. ( the router where
> the network is, yes pingable)
>
Make sure the nexthop
* Erich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-28 08:20]:
> i now have a session i turned on update loging ob bpgd but the routes do
> not
> get inserted. any ideas?
well, check nexthop validity...
bgpctl show nexthop
--
Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.d
i now have a session i turned on update loging ob bpgd but the routes do not
get inserted. any ideas?
AS41412: update 123.123.123.0/24 via xxx..xx. ( the router where
the network is, yes pingable)
Erich schrieb:
Claudio Jeker schrieb:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 09:51:05AM +0100, Erich
Claudio Jeker schrieb:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 09:51:05AM +0100, Erich wrote:
hi,
is there a way to announce the same AS an different locations?
lets say 123.123.123.0/23 is mine and i want to have
123.123.123.0/24 @location1 and 23.123.124.0/24 @location2,
right now i have the problem tha
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 09:51:05AM +0100, Erich wrote:
> hi,
>
> is there a way to announce the same AS an different locations?
>
> lets say 123.123.123.0/23 is mine and i want to have
> 123.123.123.0/24 @location1 and 23.123.124.0/24 @location2,
> right now i have the problem that the bgpd seems
sure.. my fault, just assume the networks are right.
and this is not my problem ;)
Alexander Hall schrieb:
Erich wrote:
hi,
is there a way to announce the same AS an different locations?
lets say 123.123.123.0/23 is mine and i want to have
123.123.123.0/24 @location1 and 23.123.124.0/24 @loc
hi,
is there a way to announce the same AS an different locations?
lets say 123.123.123.0/23 is mine and i want to have
123.123.123.0/24 @location1 and 23.123.124.0/24 @location2,
right now i have the problem that the bgpd seems to drop the routes to
each other, means the networks are reachabl
Hi RW
I found the problem :-) My OpenVPN setup is OK. My ipsecctl.conf
was almost perfect: I setup the flow from my OpenBSD box (the branch
office) to be passive ... duh!!! ;-) Now that it has been converted
to dynamic the tunnel gets setup if the OpenVPN client initiates
traffic :-)
TIA
Paol
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:26:14 -0400, Paolo Supino wrote:
>Hi RW
>
> Except for the branch VPN to the main office subnet (line# 3) I have
>the other IPSEC rules: peer to peer, 2 subnets to 1 subnet (and vice
>versa on the main office VPN peer). Why do I need to setup a tunnel
>between the branch f
Hi RW
Except for the branch VPN to the main office subnet (line# 3) I have
the other IPSEC rules: peer to peer, 2 subnets to 1 subnet (and vice
versa on the main office VPN peer). Why do I need to setup a tunnel
between the branch firewall and main office subnet?
TIA
Paolo
RW wrote:
On M
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:15:02 -0400, Paolo Supino wrote:
>Hi
>
> I have a firewall that also acts as a VPN peer for 2 VPNs. One of
>the VPNs is IPSEC that connects between the main office and a branch
>office. The second VPN is OpenVPN that connects windows based road
>warriors to the branch offic
Hi David
I do push the route to the OpenVPN clients and I do have the route
back on the servers in the main office. To be sure I ran a sniffer on
a server in the main office to see if any traffic reaches the server
from the VPN client and the sniffer showed nothing reached the server.
It's not a
Hi David
It's true that all IP addresses are in the 10.x.x.x private address
space that isn't supposed to be routed on the Internet, but in all the
connections over the Internet the only visible addresses are the
public ones (otherwise the VPNs wouldn't be working): Main and branch
office public
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/3/07 3:28 PM, Paolo Supino wrote:
> Hi David
>
> It's true that all IP addresses are in the 10.x.x.x private address
> space that isn't supposed to be routed on the Internet, but in all the
> connections over the Internet the only visible addres
On 2007/09/03 17:15, Paolo Supino wrote:
> I have a firewall that also acts as a VPN peer for 2 VPNs. One of
> the VPNs is IPSEC that connects between the main office and a branch
> office. The second VPN is OpenVPN that connects windows based road
> warriors to the branch office. I want to enable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/3/07 2:15 PM, Paolo Supino wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have a firewall that also acts as a VPN peer for 2 VPNs. One of
> the VPNs is IPSEC that connects between the main office and a branch
> office. The second VPN is OpenVPN that connects windows based r
Hi
I have a firewall that also acts as a VPN peer for 2 VPNs. One of
the VPNs is IPSEC that connects between the main office and a branch
office. The second VPN is OpenVPN that connects windows based road
warriors to the branch office. I want to enable employees that connect
to the branch's Open
YOu mean you want all 6(?) IP's on the same interface? Ya, it's called
aliases.
I think you are looking for man(5) hostname.if.
--Bryan
On 6/13/06, User Beastie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear All.
>
> I have one simple question.
> If my ISP assign one point to point ip address and one fu
Dear All.
I have one simple question.
If my ISP assign one point to point ip address and one full subnet
mask address (/28), can i have those in one my ethernet interface ?
If it's possible, is there any network routing problem ?
FYI , i have one private network and DMZ .
regards
Beastie
d.org
Subject: routing question
Greets
I have a scenario that is simple but I am having trouble getting my head
around. Inside a 192.168.10/24 network there exists a 10.4.6/24 network for
VOIP. Everthing works fine.
The issue I have is setting up a route for a third party VOIP management
co
Greets
I have a scenario that is simple but I am having trouble getting my head
around. Inside a 192.168.10/24 network there exists a 10.4.6/24 network for
VOIP. Everthing works fine.
The issue I have is setting up a route for a third party VOIP management
company who wants to access the VOI
Christoph Leser wrote:
Hello,
the question is about how to route traffic from an openvpn tunnel
to an ipsec tunnel.
This is my setup:
The OpenBSD gateway has an internal (10.0.1.1/24 )
and external (x.x.x.x/30) interface.
The internal net is NAT'ed to the external interface to provide
int
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:31:13PM +0100, Christoph Leser wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the question is about how to route traffic from an openvpn tunnel
> to an ipsec tunnel.
>
> This is my setup:
>
> The OpenBSD gateway has an internal (10.0.1.1/24 )
> and external (x.x.x.x/30) interface.
>
> The inte
Hello,
the question is about how to route traffic from an openvpn tunnel
to an ipsec tunnel.
This is my setup:
The OpenBSD gateway has an internal (10.0.1.1/24 )
and external (x.x.x.x/30) interface.
The internal net is NAT'ed to the external interface to provide
internet access to hosts on th
Claudio Jeker wrote:
Do you think that private IPs form the 172.16/12 range are routed in the
internet?
Shit. I have forgotten it only works turning on NAT. Thanks!
--
Stephan A. Rickauer
Institut f|r Neuroinformatik
Universitdt / ETH Z|rich
Winterthurerstri
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 06:25:14AM +0200, Stephan A. Rickauer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> maybe you could help me in resolving a weired problem. I am so close to
> subsitute my linux box with openbsd, but I seem to misunderstand something:
>
> My gateway/firewall has three interfaces:
>
> em0172.
Hello,
maybe you could help me in resolving a weired problem. I am so close to
subsitute my linux box with openbsd, but I seem to misunderstand something:
My gateway/firewall has three interfaces:
em0172.16.3.253
em1130.60.230.187
fxp0 10.1.1.1
Additionally, three carp device
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:25:29 -0500, John Brooks wrote:
>
> >My office network has an adsl connection with a single static
> >ip as follows:
> >
> > 209.145.160.141/24 (gw 209.145.160.1)
> >
> >I requested additional ip's from my provider and they gave me
> >8 addresses at:
> >
> > 207.246.1
> On Tuesday, September 06, John Brooks wrote:
>
> >
> > (209.145.160.141)
> > OBSD #1 -
> > \
> > Switch DSL Modem ISP(209.145.160.1)
> > /
> > OBSD #2 -
> > (207.246.198.220)
> >
> > I was expecting that 207.246.198.
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:25:29 -0500, John Brooks wrote:
>My office network has an adsl connection with a single static
>ip as follows:
>
> 209.145.160.141/24 (gw 209.145.160.1)
>
>I requested additional ip's from my provider and they gave me
>8 addresses at:
>
> 207.246.198.216/29
>
>They are
On Tuesday, September 06, John Brooks wrote:
>
> (209.145.160.141)
> OBSD #1 -
> \
> Switch DSL Modem ISP(209.145.160.1)
> /
> OBSD #2 -
> (207.246.198.220)
>
> I was expecting that 207.246.198.217 would have been set
My office network has an adsl connection with a single static
ip as follows:
209.145.160.141/24 (gw 209.145.160.1)
I requested additional ip's from my provider and they gave me
8 addresses at:
207.246.198.216/29
They are routing all 8 of these new addresses down my adsl
'pipe'. On my OB
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:03:44 +1000
"Rod.. Whitworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:11:28 -0400, Bill wrote:
> >
> >Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:09:24 -0400
> >From: Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Rod.. Whitworth" <
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:11:28 -0400, Bill wrote:
>
>Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:09:24 -0400
>From: Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Rod.. Whitworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: routing question - why one way?
>
>
>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:36:13 +100
On Thursday, September 01, 2005, Bill wrote:
> Right now I have the router installed with two active interfaces...
>
> Segment A (192.168.0.4) interface on the router Segment B
> (10.3.0.1) interface on the router
>
> Now I have a machine on each segment also:
>
> 192.168.0.2 (Segment A)
> 10.
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:09:24 -0400
From: Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rod.. Whitworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: routing question - why one way?
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:36:13 +1000
"Rod.. Whitworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:09:45 +0800
Uwe Dippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:01:44 -0400, Bill wrote:
>
> > I will try to summarize...
>
> Is it this ?:
>
> firewallrouter=linux
>192.168.0.2 192.168.0.4 10.4.0.1 10.4.50.1
>
> In your FP it
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:01:44 -0400, Bill wrote:
> I will try to summarize...
Is it this ?:
firewallrouter=linux
192.168.0.2 192.168.0.4 10.4.0.1 10.4.50.1
In your FP it is 10.3.0.0, now it is 10.4.0.0, right ?
> This is the routers table:
> Internet:
> Destinat
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 01:01:08 -0400, Bill wrote:
>OBSD 3.7 - new install
>
>I am building a router. And I am having a routing problem. I am not
>doing any packet filtering, NAT or anything... its all strictly private
>address space nets I also most definately have ip forwarding set in
>sysctl
>
>R
Sorry for the confusion...
I will try to summarize...
I have a machine on each side of a router I am building (3.7).
One one side it is a firewall connected to the internet (192.168.0.2/24)
On the other side it is a linux notebook (10.4.50.1/16)
>From linux I can ping any interface on the route
That was kind of hard to follow.
Can you post traceroutes?
--Bryan
On 8/31/05, Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OBSD 3.7 - new install
>
> I am building a router. And I am having a routing problem. I am not
> doing any packet filtering, NAT or anything... its all strictly private
> address
OBSD 3.7 - new install
I am building a router. And I am having a routing problem. I am not
doing any packet filtering, NAT or anything... its all strictly private
address space nets I also most definately have ip forwarding set in
sysctl
Right now I have the router installed with two active int
82 matches
Mail list logo