Thanks buddy...I appreciate it.
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Aug 3, 2004 1:11 PM
To: "Hakim Z. Singhji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
freebsd Questions <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Questions on IPFW???
Hakim Z. Sing
Hakim Z. Singhji wrote:
You answered my question, I wanted to know which was better to use with
port forwarding (ipfw or natd) and based on what you wrote, natd is a
better fit due to the fact that I would not have to force the other machine
to accept packets redirected from the NAT box using natd.
. Is that correct???
-Original Message-
From: "Hakim Z. Singhji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Aug 3, 2004 12:49 PM
To: Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Questions on IPFW???
Hello Chuck,
I was wondering if someone could help me answer
s 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:
> Ques
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
Hey guys,
Question, when NAT overloading is it possible to use only IPFW rules to pass TCP/UDP
packects to remote ip addresses within the network? Or do you have to use
natd...because IPFW allows you to execute the following for example:
ip f
