; to /boot/loader.conf when setting up NAT.
The mailing list message linked above suggests that the handbook
information is the "old way" and that the correct way is to set
ipfw_enable and natd_enable in rc.conf. "Then /etc/rc.d/ipfw will
load ipfw.ko, and if natd_enable is set, will inv
Olivier Nicole wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> The mailing list message linked above suggests that the handbook
>> information is the "old way" and that the correct way is to set
>> ipfw_enable and natd_enable in rc.conf. "Then /etc/rc.d/ipfw will
>> load ipfw.ko, and if natd_enable is set, will invoke /etc/
hings, add the
> line ipdivert_load="YES" to /boot/loader.conf when setting up NAT.
>
> The mailing list message linked above suggests that the handbook
> information is the "old way" and that the correct way is to set
> ipfw_enable and natd_enable in rc.conf. "T
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/network-natd.html
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2011-April/229017.html
Hello,
Handbook section 31.9.3 suggests I should, among other things, add the
line ipdivert_load="YES" to /boot/loader.conf when setting up NAT.
The ma
Does anyone know how to get NAT loopback (aka NAT hairpin or NAT
reflection) working with natd and ipfw? It seems to work with the
in-kernel NAT without the need for configuration, but not if you're
using natd.
I have a feeling it may be something do do with the ipfw
"diverted-loop
hi sam
i do not know what is the exactly correct manner in freebsd, but it think
based on definition for NAT, you should not be able to access inside
systems from outside unless you have port direction.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:35 AM, s m wrote:
> thanks Danny, but i'm using pf t
thanks Danny, but i'm using pf to define rules and pfctl to apply them.
first of all it is so important for me to understand what should
exactly happen and what is the correct behavior in freebsd. i mean
when i define nat from inside to outside, should outside system can
access inside syste
On 4/04/2013 6:41 PM, s m wrote:
request packets: src:192.168.2.1> dst: 192.168.1.1
reply packets: src: 192.168.2.50> dst:192.168.2.1
This sort of thing tends to happen when the the packets are not being
sent via divert socket properly.
Look carefully, step by step, at your ipf
hello guys
i am newbie in nat and have some problem with it.
i want to nat inside traffic to outside and when i ping outside from
inside, every thing is ok and nat is done perfectly. but when i ping inside
from outside, request packets are sent without any nat translation while
reply packets
Hi folks,
This is *very* weird but it's consistent.
Most of my servers run with jailed services and I access the jails
directly with NAT to a private network where the jails run.
Jails network are just aliases of lo0 liske so:
lo0: flags=8049 metric 0 mtu 16384
options=3
Hi all,
I am trying to use pf nat rules with pool support on FreeBsd 8.0, working
together with ipfw as the main firewall. According to the natting concepts i
faced in manuals and docs, nat concept is to map the source address to the
natted address when sending the packets from that source and
OK - I'm confused. Could be all the top posting. ;-)
testbed# man ipfw
Formatting page, please wait...Done.
IPFW(8) FreeBSD System Manager's Manual
IPFW(8)
NAME
ipfw -- User interface for firewall, traffic shaper, packet scheduler,
in-
Mike -
You're confused. natd is still a userland process that works via
divert sockets. ipfirewall nat is an extension to ipfirewall (ipfw is
the userland control program to modify the rulesets, nat config,
tables, etc.).
- Michael
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Michael Powell
Michael Sierchio wrote:
> I'm familiar with natd since its appearance. I was unclear on the
> ipfirewall nat syntax, since there is no syntax definition in the man
> page. It's true the man page is already too large, but some examples
> (somewhere) would be nice. M
I'm familiar with natd since its appearance. I was unclear on the
ipfirewall nat syntax, since there is no syntax definition in the man
page. It's true the man page is already too large, but some examples
(somewhere) would be nice. Marshaling packets into userland and back
into the ke
From: Michael Sierchio
To: Dan Nelson
Cc: Bill Tillman ; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Tue, July 12, 2011 6:35:19 PM
Subject: Re: IPFW Firewall NAT inbound port-redirect
We're not talking about natd. The question was about the use of ipfirewal
e external interface? A la
> >>
> >> nat 123 config if re0.2 log same_ports redirect_port tcp 10.0.0.3:22
> >> 102.10.22.1:
> >
> > Yes; the redirect_port syntax is described in the natd manpage:
> >
> > redirect_port proto targe
We're not talking about natd. The question was about the use of ipfirewall nat.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Dan Nelson wrote:
> In the last episode (Jul 12), Michael Sierchio said:
>> Is there a way of specifying a particular public address if there is
>> more t
In the last episode (Jul 12), Michael Sierchio said:
> Is there a way of specifying a particular public address if there is
> more than one bound to the external interface? A la
>
> nat 123 config if re0.2 log same_ports redirect_port tcp 10.0.0.3:22
> 102.10.22.1:
Yes; th
Is there a way of specifying a particular public address if there is
more than one bound to the external interface? A la
nat 123 config if re0.2 log same_ports redirect_port tcp 10.0.0.3:22
102.10.22.1:
?
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Bill Tillman wrote
From: Dan Nelson
To: Michael Sierchio
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 1:07:31 PM
Subject: Re: IPFW Firewall NAT inbound port-redirect
In the last episode (Jul 11), Michael Sierchio said:
> Sorry for the naive question, but most
In the last episode (Jul 11), Michael Sierchio said:
> Sorry for the naive question, but most of my old rulesets still use
> natd, and I've only used built-in nat for outbound traffic. I'd like
> to redirect certain ports on certain addresses to the same ports on
> intern
Sorry for the naive question, but most of my old rulesets still use
natd, and I've only used built-in nat for outbound traffic. I'd like
to redirect certain ports on certain addresses to the same ports on
internal (RFC1918) addresses. The examples in the man page aren't
helpful, a
dbook uses divert natd, which I used until I switched to the kernel nat
> approach.
Assuming that was working, is changing to ipfw nat the only difference?
Or is that when you added fwd to the mix? Is 192.168.0.55 another box
on the LAN, or an IP alias on this box? What says 'netstat -fine
Some points:
1) I did use the handbook as reference, and my ruleset mimics the layout
used there.
2) Handbook uses divert natd, which I used until I switched to the
kernel nat approach.
3) I did not find any concrete examples of ipfw nat rule usage, so I'm
using them the old natd way.
In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 368, Issue 6, Message: 21
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:16:32 +0200 umage wrote:
> Hi, I'm an ipfw user that finally got the opportunity to set up NAT on
> an interface with a public IP. I was doing some multi-homing experiments
> using ipfw fwd
Hi, I'm an ipfw user that finally got the opportunity to set up NAT on
an interface with a public IP. I was doing some multi-homing experiments
using ipfw fwd combined with outbound ipfw nat - and since I needed to
run both, and both immediately ended ipfw ruleset execution, I had to
tur
map em0 10.100.100.0/26 <http://10.100.100.0/26> -> 0/32 proxy port 8080
http/tcp
map em0 10.100.100.0/26 <http://10.100.100.0/26> -> 0/32 portmap tcp/udp
1:65000
map em0 10.100.100.0/26 <http://10.100.100.0/26> -> 0/32
map em0 10.100.100.0/26 <http://10.100.100.0/
Ok I've managed to make some headway however it still isn't working
properly:
/etc/ipnat.rules
#map em1 10.100.100.0/26 -> 0.0.0.0/32 portmap tcp/udp 1:65000
map em1 10.100.100.0/26 -> 0.0.0.0/32
map em1 10.100.100.0/26 -> 0.0.0.0/32 auto
I then added this addition to the end of the
/etc
Hi all,
I'm trying to setup a gateway between an internal network using Vbox test
machines of which one is a FreeBSD router/gateway. Being familiar with Cisco
I know how easy this is to do but I think that I'm struggling a bit with the
syntax.
My setup is as so:
Damn Small Linux (virtual machin
0.0.0.2
> ezjail create joe 10.0.0.3
> ezjail create idaho 10.0.0.4
>
> I have a single IP address for my computer - so I would need some kind
> of nat to allow these jails to access the outside world - and allow
> the outside world to access them.
>
> I've looked into p
dress for my computer - so I would need some kind
of nat to allow these jails to access the outside world - and allow
the outside world to access them.
I've looked into pf and I guess I would need something like
nat on nfe0 from 10.0.0.1 to any -> $external_ip
is this correct?
Do I need a
Hi everyone. This is probably better suited for freebsd-pf@ but I'll
give it a go before spamming YAML.
I'm testing NAT on FreeBSD 8.1. My setup is very simple:
My workstation -> { internal network switch } -> FreeBSD 8.1routing
firewall with squid 3 -> { switch going t
Problem solved, changed the mtu/mru in ppp.conf, now its working ;-)
From: Dánielisz László
To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org"
Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 8:20:36 AM
Subject: nat problems
Hi,
I'm behind a freebsd - pf machine, I'd
Hi,
I'm behind a freebsd - pf machine, I'd like to connect to a webpage, but it
loads a bit and then it stops, I checked out the pf -s stat and it says:
FIN_WAIT_2:ESTABLISHED and FIN_WAIT_2:FIN_WAIT_for the connection.
Do you have any idea whats happening?
Thank you!
Laszlo
On 19/07/2010 10:05, Aiza wrote:
you have to put your hosts /etc/resolve.conf in each jail before you can
get network connection.
I did. It contains:
nameserver 208.67.222.222
nameserver 208.67.220.220
I believe that it's not a problem with jail configuration because NAT
works fine o
YES"
firewall_script="/etc/ipfw.rules"
firewall_nat_enable="YES"
firewall_nat_interface="wlan0"
/etc/resolve.conf
nameserver 208.67.222.222
nameserver 208.67.220.220
/etc/ipfw.conf
ipfw -q -f flush
ipfw add 1 allow all from 127.0.0.1 to 127.0.0.1 via lo0
> "Michael" == Michael writes:
Michael> Does anybody has a working configuration with ipfw nated jails
Michael> on loopback interface?
I noticed in my pf.conf that I had "set skip on lo".
I changed that to "set skip on lo0" (still advisable), and then created
an "lo1" using
ipv4_addrs_l
"/etc/ipfw.rules"
firewall_nat_enable="YES"
firewall_nat_interface="wlan0"
/etc/resolve.conf
nameserver 208.67.222.222
nameserver 208.67.220.220
/etc/ipfw.conf
ipfw -q -f flush
ipfw add 1 allow all from 127.0.0.1 to 127.0.0.1 via lo0
ipfw add
0.1 for example in the dhchpd.conf.
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Gary Dunn wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:05:12 -0400 mikel king wrote:
> >
> >> On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:57 PM, Gary Dunn wrote:
[snip]
Thanks for all the help with this! I got NAT working today
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/firewalls-ipfw.html
> >
> > This is absolutely the worst section of an otherwise great
> > handbook ... Nothing short of a rewrite from scratch could
> > fix it ...
>
> As a
Ian Smith wrote:
> > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/firewalls-ipfw.html
>
> This is absolutely the worst section of an otherwise great
> handbook ... Nothing short of a rewrite from scratch could
> fix it ...
As always, I'm sure a patch -- to provide that rewrite --
would be welcome.
_
load="YES"
> >
> > I thought from your earlier mail that you wanted to use in-kernel
> > NAT?
>
> I want whatever works. :-)
natd works, as ever. ipfw nat is reputed to work faster.
> Beyond that ... all other
Ian Smith writes:
> > So ... double-checking I'm doing this right:
> >
> > 1) in /boot/loader.conf:
> >
> > ipfw_load="YES"
> > ipdivert_load="YES"
>
> I thought from your earlier mail that you wanted to use in
ipfw(8) is a complete (albeit very
terse) ipfw reference and I thoroughly recommend studying that instead.
Despite what the handbook section says, the sample rules eg the 'simple'
ruleset in rc.firewall ARE these days suitable for immediate use using
rc.conf variables, DO include
Unfortunately, still 17MB. I am going to play around with the sticks
of RAM that I have installed to see if there is a chipset/motherboard
issue.
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:56 PM, mikel king wrote:
>
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:32 PM, Gary Dunn wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:05:12 -0400 mikel king
>
On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:32 PM, Gary Dunn wrote:
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:05:12 -0400 mikel king
wrote:
On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:57 PM, Gary Dunn wrote:
Continuing the saga of building a wireless access point, what is the
best way to provide DNS service to the dowstream network? Seems like
all I ne
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:05:12 -0400 mikel king wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:57 PM, Gary Dunn wrote:
>
>> Continuing the saga of building a wireless access point, what is the
>> best way to provide DNS service to the dowstream network? Seems like
>> all I need is a simple pass-through. For that nam
Gary Dunn wrote:
Continuing the saga of building a wireless access point, what is the best way
to provide DNS service to the dowstream network? Seems like all I need is a
simple pass-through. For that named seems like overkill. Anyone have an
/etc/named/named.conf that does that?
I normally
reeBSD kernel,
unless NAT functionality is required.
I do want NAT, and there is no unambiguous path in the
Handbook.
> Still need entries in /etc/rc.conf. See HB 30.9.5, 30.6.3,
> 30.6.5.7
Once ipfw is running, I should have the rule
On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:57 PM, Gary Dunn wrote:
Continuing the saga of building a wireless access point, what is the
best way to provide DNS service to the dowstream network? Seems like
all I need is a simple pass-through. For that named seems like
overkill. Anyone have an /etc/named/named.co
On Apr 8, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Gary Dunn wrote:
> Continuing the saga of building a wireless access point, what is the best way
> to provide DNS service to the dowstream network?
Run a nameserver?
> Seems like all I need is a simple pass-through. For that named seems like
> overkill. Anyone have a
Continuing the saga of building a wireless access point, what is the best way
to provide DNS service to the dowstream network? Seems like all I need is a
simple pass-through. For that named seems like overkill. Anyone have an
/etc/named/named.conf that does that?
--
Gary Dunn, Honolulu
o...@al
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 08:10:34 -0400 Robert Huff wrote:
> So ... double-checking I'm doing this right:
>
> 1) in /boot/loader.conf:
>
> ipfw_load="YES"
> ipdivert_load="YES"
yes; see NAT HB 31.9.3
>
> 2) in the kernel config:
IMHO, and ac
BOSE #enable logging to syslogd(8)
> #options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE_LIMIT=100#limit verbosity
> #options IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT#allow everything by default
> #options IPDIVERT
> #options IPFIREWALL_NAT #ipfw kernel nat support
> options LIBALIAS
2) in the kernel config:
#options IPFIREWALL #firewall
#options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE #enable logging to syslogd(8)
#options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE_LIMIT=100#limit verbosity
#options IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT#allow everything by default
#options IPDIVERT
#opti
Adam Vande More writes:
> >If compiled into the kernel, there's a set of optional settings
> > (VERBOSE, LOG_LINIT, DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT, etc) that can be set there.
> >If using the module, how does one set these?
> >
> Logging is compiled into the modules and there are a few sy
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Robert Huff wrote:
>If compiled into the kernel, there's a set of optional settings
> (VERBOSE, LOG_LINIT, DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT, etc) that can be set there.
>If using the module, how does one set these?
>
>
Logging is compiled into the modules and the
Adam Vande More writes:
> > I am setting up a router to share one Wi-Fi link between a few computers
> > that only support CAT-5. Like a wireless access point except wired and
> > wireless sides are reversed. My question is about the ipfw packet filter.
> > >From
om the handbook section on NAT, 31.9.3, I can achieve what I need with
> boot loader options. Section 31.9.4 describes alternatives for building a
> custom kernel. In contrast, the chapter on ipfw states several times that
> NAT requires a custom kernel - 30.6.1, 30.6.2, 30.6.5.7.
>
> I
I am setting up a router to share one Wi-Fi link between a few computers that
only support CAT-5. Like a wireless access point except wired and wireless
sides are reversed. My question is about the ipfw packet filter. >From the
handbook section on NAT, 31.9.3, I can achieve what I need w
no problems, until next overflow.
>
[snip]
It is unclear whether or how MySQL is involved with NAT. If it is somehow
being used to store NAT session data it might be a possibility. If such is
the case all recent MySQL versions by default time out an idle connection,
and unless the client
Hello everyone,
I'm kind of noob in FreeBSD particularily, and in Unix systems at all
:-= ). But, I've already mastered an router on freebsd 7.2, which
worked fine u= ntil I installed their MySQL with huge database.
Now, once a day, I have a problem - users do not have internet on
Hello, FreeRadius.
GE Intelligent Platforms - 10GE.
Does FreeBSD support that?
--
Коньков mailto:kes-...@yandex.ru
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To
ernet hose comes in on.
There is an HP Laserjet connected via JetDirect on the first network
at 192.168.0.122. I have added this to machine A's NAT config
to make that port appear on the outside IP address:
redirect_port tcp 192.168.0.102:9100 machine.A.IP.addr:9100
natd was then restarte
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 5:18 PM, wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if anyone could t ell me what is the maximum number
> of static IP NAT sessions FreeBSD can sup port and what are the
> limiting factors (memory, bus speed, software release , forks, etc)?
Hello,
I was wondering if anyone could t= ell me what is the maximum number
of static IP NAT sessions FreeBSD can sup= port and what are the
limiting factors (memory, bus speed, software release= , forks, etc)?
Kind regards,
<= div>
David B
Hi all,
I have a freebsd 7.2-RELEASE-p2 firewall with a configuration like this:
BEGIN ###
ext_if4="em0" # public interface
int_if="em1" # private interface, to be source NATted
nat pass log (to pflog2) on $ext_if4 inet from $int_if:network to ! ($ext_if4)
->
Hello, Freebsd-questions.
ipfw add 100 tag 1 all from any to any
ipfw add 101 nat 5 all from any to any
ipfw add 102 allow all from any to any tagged 1
ipfw add 103 deny log all from any to any
All packets are denied on 103 and is not allow at 102
--
С уважением,
Коньков
Have this nat rule
rdr rl0 0.0.0.0/0 port 6355 -> 10.0.10.3 port 6355
I can see in the log that tcp packets are being redirected but udp
packets are not. Can not find any verbiage in man 5 0r 8 ipnat that
states rdr rule only matches on tcp packets. I thought tcp/udp packets
should be redirec
Have this nat rule
rdr rl0 0.0.0.0/0 port 6355 -> 10.0.10.3 port 6355
I can see in the log that tcp packets are being redirected but udp
packets are not. Can not find any verbiage in man 5 0r 8 ipnat that
states rdr rule only matches on tcp packets. I thought tcp/udp packets
should
you
> manage to get work NAT with pf using PPPoE from my ISP; I'd like to
> use DHCP on my LAN.
PPPoE is documented in the handbook, I'd suggest you set that up first
together with a simple pf firewall to secure the system. There are
plenty of howtos for PF+NAT+DHCP.
I would sugg
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
Dánielisz László wrote:
> Let's say I have two NICs in my PC: ext_if (for wan/pppoe connection) and
> int_if for my LAN.
> How would you manage to get work NAT with pf using PPPoE from my ISP
As a start your pf.conf could look a
> How would you manage to get work NAT with pf using PPPoE from my ISP; I'd
> like to use DHCP on my LAN.
It's quite easy, I did this in the past with FreeBSD 5.
1. PPPoE
Setup /etc/ppp/ppp.conf with the correct data for your ISP.
It woule be like this:
:
Hello,
I am looking to configure my FreeBSD 8.0 machine for the purpose specified in
the subject.
Let's say I have two NICs in my PC: ext_if (for wan/pppoe connection) and
int_if for my LAN.
How would you manage to get work NAT with pf using PPPoE from my ISP; I'd like
to use DHCP
Hello,
I
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Hello,
I am trying to add a second firewall/NAT to my network for the purpose of
using NAT's address redirection to point to my webserver behind the firewall.
So far I have a fresh install of FreeBSD and have recompiled the kernel with
IPDIVERT and IPFIREWALL but NAT will not forward
Steve,
Unfortinatly the development and production servers are windows
running IIS. However, I have tried the following two experiments:
1.) using IIS's logs I am able to see all hits to development and production
servers. When I visit the development server through the FreeBSD NAT
Freeco wrote:
>
> Maybe i made some cabling loop, becauce my internet stoped to work. In the
> beginning everything was ok, but after some time when all 3 pc's who was
> connected to switch it stopped to work. Why?
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.c
ext:
http://www.nabble.com/IPF%2C-NAT-or-NIC-tp25491958p25520353.html
Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubsc
Scott Elgram wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am at my wits end with this one. I have set up a box to use
> of firewall/nat. However, during the setup I pointed set net to do a port
> redirect of port 6502 to port 80 of my development web server. Everything
> worked fine so
Hello,
I am at my wits end with this one. I have set up a box to use
of firewall/nat. However, during the setup I pointed set net to do a port
redirect of port 6502 to port 80 of my development web server. Everything
worked fine so I deployed my new box onto a live IP and tested it
Freeco wrote:
> My gateway gave me a message: "gateway kernel: arp: x.x.88.17 is on fxp0 but
> got reply from 00:0c:42:11:15:a8 on rl0
That MAC address is that of a Mikrotic router.
I suspect that you've created a cabling loop of some sort again.
Steve
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptograp
My gateway gave me a message: "gateway kernel: arp: x.x.88.17 is on fxp0 but
got reply from 00:0c:42:11:15:a8 on rl0
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/IPF%2C-NAT-or-NIC-tp25491958p25513518.html
Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabbl
After some time, when all 3 pc's was connected to switch inet lost. I
couldn't open any web page. I didn;t try to ping anything.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/IPF%2C-NAT-or-NIC-tp25491958p25513318.html
Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at
Freeco wrote:
> Ok, thanks for advice about switch. You really helped me so much. Now i'll
> get with my ipf and nat rules.
I'm glad I could help. So many people here and on other lists have
helped me significantly over the years, so I try to give back whenever I
can/have time.
Ok, thanks for advice about switch. You really helped me so much. Now i'll
get with my ipf and nat rules.
What ports u recomend to keep open and how to block gateway ping?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/IPF%2C-NAT-or-NIC-tp25491958p25512314.html
Sent from the fr
Freeco wrote:
> Thanks man!
>
> Everything works when i connected a cable directly to the gateway. Till this
> there was two cables connected because inet cable was too short. But i want
> my gateway to bring to another room so i'll need to connect 2 cables and
> inet will doesn't work again?
>
Freeco wrote:
> Thanks man!
>
> Everything works when i connected a cable directly to the gateway. Till this
> there was two cables connected because inet cable was too short.
I kind of figured something along those lines.
> But i want
> my gateway to bring to another room so i'll need to conn
IP's when cables was connected.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/IPF%2C-NAT-or-NIC-tp25491958p25511903.html
Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org ma
.168.1.2
...if that works:
% ping x.x.88.20
...if that one does NOT work, post back to the list, and I'll help you
with a few commands to do, so we can see where things are dying, and try
to find out if this is a NAT problem or not. If it does work:
% ping x.x.88.17
...if that works, we
fxp0 is integrated NIC. In this NIC connects a cable from ISP. rl0 is PCI NIC
the cable connets to switch with all other 3 pc's.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/IPF%2C-NAT-or-NIC-tp25491958p25510880.html
Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabbl
e believable that there is some sort of
cabling mishap.
> P.S. Sorry for my poor english
You don't have to be. You're doing just fine!
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/IPF%2C-NAT-or-NIC-tp25491958p25510716.html
Sent from the freebsd-question
er to the gateway
through a switch, they will all need different prefixes (they'll be in
different subnets):
192.168.1.x
192.168.2.x
192.168.3.x
etc.
In this case, you WILL need at least four NICs in the gateway, and you
will need at least three different NAT configurations.
I'm at a
> IP: 192.168.1.7
> Mask: 255.255.255.128 (SAME IN rc.conf ON FREEBSD)
> Gateway: 192.168.1.2
> Dns: x.x.88.17
> Dns: 192.168.1.2
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/IPF%2C-NAT-or-NIC-tp25491958p25510433.html
Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nab
Freeco wrote:
> Steve Bertrand wrote:
>
>
> |-
> |
> ISP>--
> | \ |
> | \ |_
> | \
>
>
> So i'll need 2 more NIC's fo
Steve Bertrand wrote:
> map fxp0 192.168.0.0/24 -> 0/32
>
> Aside from that, are you sure that this entry shouldn't be:
>
> map rl0 192.168.0.0/24 -> 0/32
>
> ? Again, I don't know ipnat, but to me, in the fxp0 entry, it looks like
> you are trying to map the 192 space coming INTO fxp0 (which i
d recommend a firewall for anything between the
gateway and the ISP.
The gateway will work like IPF (Firewall) and NAT. Is it wrong?
Steve wrote:
I just noticed that your ISP has assigned you a /28 prefix.
Is all of this 255.255.255.240 yours, or are you on a shared network
segment? If it is your
>
> |
> ISP x.x.88.17>--- 192.168.1.2>--
>
>
> |
>
>
> |_____
>
The diagram got mangled, bu
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 02:53:12PM -0400, Robert Huff typed:
>
> Ruben de Groot writes:
>
> > > However: using these I still can't get through
> >
> > Through to what? You seem to be able to connect on a local subnet, but
> > not to the internet
1 - 100 of 706 matches
Mail list logo
