dave wrote:
Hi,
I use to use ipf under pre-5.3. NOw i have switched to pf for various
reasons. I have not as of yet deployed it on my router, but i will be
doing so. In looking it over, i do not believe pf needs nat_enable it does
all it's nats within the pf.conf file.
HTH
Dave.
Why
Ok, I'm slowly coming out of the fog here, but it looks like I might
still have a way to go.
I finally found the part in the handbook that said I didn't have to
compile in the IPFW* and IPDIVERT configs into the kernel *UNLESS* I
wanted NAT. Well, I do, but I didn't comple the kernel with
Hi,
I use to use ipf under pre-5.3. NOw i have switched to pf for various
reasons. I have not as of yet deployed it on my router, but i will be doing
so. In looking it over, i do not believe pf needs nat_enable it does all
it's nats within the pf.conf file.
HTH
Dave.
On Monday 13 December 2004 02:35 pm, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
Still, I'm planning to migrate to pf, since it's supposed to be
better. It seems (from my murky understanding) like it would make
tricky NAT stuff easier, so there would be some benefits (battle.net,
here I come :).
Problem is, it
And are there any pf config generation pages out there yet?
Look at this:
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/06/26/ssn_openbsd.html?page=1
Regards,
Mauricio
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
