Hello:
I have all of the internal ip addresses listed in the /etc/hosts file.
Thanks,
Kenny
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Joan Picanyol i Puig wrote:
> * Kenny Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20021113 16:56]:
> > Interface xl0 has an assigned ip address of 10.1.1.1 and is connected
> > to an internal netw
Put your mail server and apache server domain names in /etc/hosts
file
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@;FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Kenny
Elliott
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: firewall / natd problem I
* Kenny Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20021113 16:56]:
> Interface xl0 has an assigned ip address of 10.1.1.1 and is connected
> to an internal network. Clients on the internal network are given ip
> addresses in the 10.1.1.0/24 class C via dhcp.
[snip]
> If I connect to the web server from the outs
cted to
an
internal network. Clients on the internal network are given ip addresses
in the
10.1.1.0/24 class C via dhcp.
I use the homedns.org service to map the ip address that xl1 receives to
eagle.homedns.org.
I have configured natd to run on the server. rc.conf and ipfw output to
follow
I have
Basically you need these three things:
1) natd -n -f
2) sysctl net.inet.ip.forwarding=1
3) ifocnfig alias
-terrac
Minister of Tiny Plastic Robots
---
Terrac Skienswww.terrac.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED
If you want to add rules to NATD you have to completely kill it or send it
the -HUP signal, and then restart it with the rules you want. The easiest
way to add rules to your NATD configuration is to use the natd_flags=""
part of your rc.conf file. To do this create a file in your /etc
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@;FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Alvaro Rosales
R.
Sent: 07 November 2002 07:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: NATD HELP
Im trying to set up natd in my FreeBSD BOX, I have read the NAT
portion of the hand book but I
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Alvaro Rosales R. wrote:
> Im trying to set up natd in my FreeBSD BOX, I have read the NAT portion
> of the hand book but I still need some help. this is my environment
> 10.10.1.2 (internal ip address of my wkstation) 200.37.53.22 (this the
> natd box externa
Im trying to set up natd in my FreeBSD BOX, I have read the NAT
portion of the hand book but I still need some help.
this is my environment
10.10.1.2 (internal ip address of my wkstation)
200.37.53.22 (this the natd box external IP address)
10.10.1.1 (internal address of the natd box, is the
well you could simply do an ipfw flush and then use ipfw command line to
add back the rule for the loopback device and the natd divert line
(looks like your using natd?), then do a:
ipfw add pass all from any to any
and make sure that you can send and recive traffic in both directions
without
since this is a super small distribution I do not have the default open,
closed, and client firewall configs. The set I am using is based on the
client one though, however I adjusted it to allow traffic from the inside
to the outside on specific ports and hopefully keep-state to let the
returning
Do you have gateway_enable="YES" in your firewall?
Can you get packets through both directions just fine with the firewall
set to "OPEN"?
David
Terrac Skiens wrote:
Hi there,
I have been trying to set up an embedded system from soekris, running a
small version of freebsd on it's internal com
Hi there,
I have been trying to set up an embedded system from soekris, running a
small version of freebsd on it's internal compact flash hard disk.
The machine is built, I have remote access to it and I intend to use it
as a firewall + nat appliance. Directing traffic from machines internally
> I wanted to setup one machine that can make voice
> connections over natd.
natd doesn't handle voice protocols. redirecting the ports won't work.
> When I try to make voice connection to other machine I just
> can not connect.
correct.
> We tried netmeeting too. It
Hello,
My system is a FreeBSD 4.7-STABLE. I use dial-up internet
connection.
I wanted to setup one machine that can make voice
connections over natd. My /etc/natd.conf looks like below:
ozlerplastik@ertank ~> cat /etc/natd.conf
log yes
same_ports yes
dynamic yes
#MSN talk ports
redirect_port
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
At 12:18 AM 10/28/2002 +0200, D. Penev wrote:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 02:18:21PM -0500, Robert Hall wrote:
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 14:18:21 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Robert Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Starting natd
At 11:41 PM 10/26/2002 +0300, you wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 02:18:21PM -0500, Robert Hall wrote:
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 14:18:21 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Robert Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Starting natd
At 11:41 PM 10/26/2002 +0300, you wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 02:18:01PM -0500, Robert Hall wrote:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 02:18:21PM -0500, Robert Hall wrote:
> I'm using kernel ppp (pppd). It is already set up and it runs. I have set
> up FreeBSD boxes before with this configuration, and natd started
> automatically and ran without any intervention on my part. For some reason,
At 11:41 PM 10/26/2002 +0300, you wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 02:18:01PM -0500, Robert Hall wrote:
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 14:18:01 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Robert Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Starting natd
I'm setting up a FBSD 4.4 box as a gateway. I've got
On Sat 26 Oct 2002 at 14:18:01, Robert Hall said:
> I'm setting up a FBSD 4.4 box as a gateway. I've got
> natd_enable="YES"
> natd_interface="ppp0"
> in rc.config, but I can't get natd to run without entering
> natd -interfa
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 02:18:01PM -0500, Robert Hall wrote:
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 14:18:01 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Robert Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Starting natd
I'm setting up a FBSD 4.4 box as a gateway. I've got
natd_enable="YES"
Saturday, October 26, 2002, 9:18:01 PM, you wrote:
> I'm setting up a FBSD 4.4 box as a gateway. I've got
> natd_enable="YES"
> natd_interface="ppp0"
> in rc.config, but I can't get natd to run without entering
> natd -interfa
From: "Robert Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:18 PM
Subject: Starting natd
> I'm setting up a FBSD 4.4 box as a gateway. I've got
> natd_enable="YES"
> natd_interface="p
I'm setting up a FBSD 4.4 box as a gateway. I've got
natd_enable="YES"
natd_interface="ppp0"
in rc.config, but I can't get natd to run without entering
natd -interface ppp0
at the comand prompt. I assume this is a configuration problem, but I'
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: help with webcam through natd + ipfw
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Charles Pelletier wrote:
>
> > question...
>
> > having never dealt with IPFW and nat, does ipnat.conf need to exist? i
> > wonder
OTECTED]>
> To: "Alan McKay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:16 PM
> Subject: Re: help with webcam through natd + ipfw
>
>
> > On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Alan McKay wrote:
> >
> > >
>
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Alan McKay wrote:
>
> > If indeed your internal machine is excepting connections on port
> > 8080 (can be tested from the firewall box using telnet) then this
>
> Cannot telnet to 8080 so it must be nat, but my natd.conf looks good to
> me. dunno what's up. nat itsel
ssage -
From: "Nick Rogness" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Alan McKay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: help with webcam through natd + ipfw
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Alan McKay wrote:
>
> >
>
> sounds like a firewalling problem. Set your firewall type to
> OPEN, reboot and see if it works. If it does, then you need to
> examine your firewall rules better.
Nope, still no go :-(
I'll wait til my buddy is back from vacation as I think he got
it going on his fbsd box
> If indeed your internal machine is excepting connections on port
> 8080 (can be tested from the firewall box using telnet) then this
Cannot telnet to 8080 so it must be nat, but my natd.conf looks
good to me. dunno what's up. nat itself is working otherwise I
wouldn't be talking t
correct.
Also, to help troubleshoot more, I would recommend using ipfw log
statements as well as the natd log option.
Nick Rogness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
"Wouldn't it be great if we could answer people with a
kick to the crotch?" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> What does `ipfw -a l` show?
That seems to be the same as "ipfw show", which I used to
determine that there do not seem to be any 'deny' rules hit.
So I cannot really tell where those packets are going. I can
hit my port 80 from work no problem (www.bodensatz.com), but
8080 no deal. So i
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Alan McKay wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I've done port-forwarding before on several different FW/NAT devices,
> but damned if I can get it going on FreeBSD. At first I tried with
> PPP's builtin NAT, and when that failed I switched to natd. I did
> googl
Folks,
I've done port-forwarding before on several different FW/NAT
devices, but damned if I can get it going on FreeBSD. At first
I tried with PPP's builtin NAT, and when that failed I switched
to natd. I did google searches and even searched the FreeBSD
list archives but did not fin
Hello,
I got port forwarding to work with one IP, but lets say I have several IP's:
natd -n fxp0 -redirect_port 192.168.1.1:25 50 - this works as it connects me
to my smtp server if I go to port 50.
But as soon as I have several IP's:
1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Scott,
Tuesday, October 22, 2002, 7:15:41 PM, you wrote:
> In regards to my last question ... or does anyone even
> know how to block all traffic from a MAC ID?
IPFW2 allows to match ip packets using MAC. It is not used
in stable by
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 10:55:26AM -0500, Scott Pilz typed:
>
> The answer to this is more than likely 'no'.
>
> But I'll try anyways.
>
> Setup: NATD/IPFW
>
> Say you have an IPFW rule to allow 10.0.0.2 through NATD - thus into the
> in
In regards to my last question ... or does anyone even know how to
block all traffic from a MAC ID?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
The answer to this is more than likely 'no'.
But I'll try anyways.
Setup: NATD/IPFW
Say you have an IPFW rule to allow 10.0.0.2 through NATD - thus into the
internet - and everything else to be blocked.
Your machine (10.0.0.2) that is being firewalled by NATD/
Dear,
I have a couple of issues regarding the IPNAT or NATD of freebsd. In case
that you dont have enough time, skip the next paragraph [description] and
go to questions section.
-=Description of problem=-
I was using NATD for more than 3 years with no problem. By debbuging
a problem in my
ermissions?
It did exist, has two lines, but no error lines, so then I set the
permissions to 755, it still didn't get written to, then I changed
it to 777, still not getting written to.
> You may also try to log events via syslog using
> "log_facility" directive.
Would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Chip,
Friday, October 18, 2002, 8:36:47 AM, you wrote:
CW> I have a server set up to run both web server and ftp
CW> server. The web server is working great, internet
CW> connect to it just fine. The ftpd server is running, it
CW> w
I have a server set up to run both web server and ftp server. The web
server is working great, internet connect to it just fine. The ftpd
server is running, it works great on the intranet, but from the internet
connections are not allowed - according to wsftp the message is
connection refused
I ha
At 04:46 PM 10.10.2002 -0700, Marc Hunter wrote:
>At 05:20 PM 10/10/02 -0600, Nick Rogness wrote:
>> That is an HTML coding problem. You shouldn't be coding with
>> full domain references in the HTML code.
>
>Not really, we have multiple web servers, so if a page on one server say
At 05:20 PM 10/10/02 -0600, Nick Rogness wrote:
> That is an HTML coding problem. You shouldn't be coding with
> full domain references in the HTML code.
Not really, we have multiple web servers, so if a page on one server says
"To see our demo click http://blah.otherserver.com/
from the machine it was
> sent to...)
>
> What is curious is that the nat converted the 'to' address correctly,
> but didn't change the from address to the firewall address as it does
> with outside traffic, so we could be missing something. Our additional
> diver
#x27; address correctly, but
didn't change the from address to the firewall address as it does with
outside traffic, so we could be missing something. Our additional divert
looks as follows:
divert natd log tcp from 192.168.0.0/24 to 24.70.100.100 80 in via rl1
our natd.conf says:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Jack L. Stone wrote:
> At 03:35 PM 10.10.2002 -0600, Nick Rogness wrote:
> >On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, wolf wrote:
> >
> >> You might try freebsd-hackers or freebsd-stable mailing lists. They are
> >> more technically oriented for things like this.
> >
> > Um, no don't send thi
At 03:35 PM 10.10.2002 -0600, Nick Rogness wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, wolf wrote:
>
>> You might try freebsd-hackers or freebsd-stable mailing lists. They are
>> more technically oriented for things like this.
>
> Um, no don't send this to hackers or stable. That is not
> their focu
wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The request never hits the firewall rule for it to get diverted into nat.
Right.
> Though I am sure an additional firewall rule would probably work to fix it.
I agree.
> Maybe something like
> divert 8668 ip from 192.168/16 to 24.70.100.100
> divert 8668 ip
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Marc Hunter wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>We have just implemented an ipfw and natd firewall and generally it
> >>works great. We are using natd for traffic going out and to redirect
> >>outside traffic on port 8
You might try freebsd-hackers or freebsd-stable mailing lists. They are
more technically oriented for things like this.
Nick Rogness wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Marc Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>We have just implemented an ipfw and natd firewall and generall
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Marc Hunter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have just implemented an ipfw and natd firewall and generally it
> works great. We are using natd for traffic going out and to redirect
> outside traffic on port 80 to a particular webserver. However, when a
> machine
from 192.168/16 to 24.70.100.100
divert 8668 ip from 24.70.100.100 to 192.168/16
Eat this with lots of salt and make sure your at the console.
Marc Hunter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have just implemented an ipfw and natd firewall and generally it
> works great. We are using natd for traff
Hi,
We have just implemented an ipfw and natd firewall and generally it works
great. We are using natd for traffic going out and to redirect outside
traffic on port 80 to a particular webserver. However, when a machine
within the network attempts to access the web server through its
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 06:34:43PM -0400, 2005 - Chill, Samuel Thomas wrote:
>Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 18:34:43 -0400
>From: "2005 - Chill, Samuel Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Puzzling Simple NATD and IPFW Problem
>
>Af
- Chill, Samuel Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Puzzling Simple NATD and IPFW Problem
>
>Here is the info. Hope it helps solve this problem.
># ifconfig -a
>rl0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
>inet6 fe80::201:aff:fe10:815b%rl0 p
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 12:00:25AM -0400, 2005 - Chill, Samuel Thomas wrote:
>Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 00:00:25 -0400
>From: "2005 - Chill, Samuel Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Puzzling Simple NATD and IPFW Problem
>
>He
ain these
filters is often a high-maintenance job.
6.3.4 Links and Cross-References
FreeBSD files:
/etc/nat.conf - NAT rules file
/etc/rc.conf - need to edit to start up NAT and PF at
boot time
/etc/sysctl.conf - need to edit to enable IP
forwarding
regards
Sonam Singh
--- "2005 - Chil
Thank you both for your answers. The campus network uses public ip
address space, sorry for not including that information. The fact why I
included it in between the internet and the natd gateway is that if
there's some weirdness in it, I somehow have to compensate for it in
FreeBSD.
UC lo0
# sysctl net.inet.ip.forwarding
net.inet.ip.forwarding: 1
# ps -aux |grep nat
root 216 0.0 0.1 436 292 ?? Is6:13PM 0:00.01 natd -interface rl0
# cat /etc/rc.conf
gateway_enable="YES"
firewall_enable="YES"
firewall_type
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 03:28:28PM -0400, JoeB wrote:
> You state Network topology:
> Internet---Campus Network---(xl0)FreeBSD NATD machine(xl1)---Internal host
>
> Internet is public ip address, if Campus Network private ip address then
> you
> can not nat them again, if
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, 2005 - Chill, Samuel Thomas wrote:
> I have ipfirewall, ipdivert, and dummynet all compiled into my kernel. I
> am able to run run natd and to specify rules with ipfw, i can also ping
> my external interface. My internal network card (rl1) is 10.0.0.1 and my
> lan
I have ipfirewall, ipdivert, and dummynet all compiled into my kernel. I am able to
run run natd and to specify rules with ipfw, i can also ping my external interface. My
internal network card (rl1) is 10.0.0.1 and my lan clients are running on 10.0.0.x. I
can ping everything, the network is
You state Network topology:
Internet---Campus Network---(xl0)FreeBSD NATD machine(xl1)---Internal host
Internet is public ip address, if Campus Network private ip address then
you
can not nat them again, if Campus Network is public ip address then you
should
nat x11 for the private ip
The setting:
Network topology:
Internet---Campus Network---(xl0)FreeBSD NATD machine(xl1)---Internal host
A custom kernel build including the following options:
options IPFIREWALL
options IPDIVERT
Used the command:
sysctl net.inet.ip.forwarding=1
And started natd with natd -interface xl0
Then
I am trying to establish a PPTP connection from a client inside an ipfw
firewall to an external PPTP server. I've searched the web, but found
little information -- and what I did find appeared to be out of date
(regarding natd's -pptpalias option, for example).
I'm running FBSD 4.7-RC. Could so
Is there a way to get PPP's firewall filters to port forward? If
not, how can I use natd to do so. I have read extensive documentation and
can't seem to find the answer. I just need to for a port to an internel
system. The nated rule would be something like redirect 192.168.
The setting:
Network topology:
Internet---Campus Network---FreeBSD NATD machine---Internal host
A custom kernel build including the following options:
options IPFIREWALL
options IPDIVERT
Used the command:
sysctl net.inet.ip.forwarding=1
And started natd with natd -interface xl0
Then did
ernal systems (natd ips).
PPP filters don't seem to be able to port forward, e.g. redirect
192.168.1.5:9090 9090 (natd rule). From what I have seen, it looks like natd
can be used to nat a ppp connection. I am currently using the -nat connection
with PPP. When I try natd with a -n tun0, th
of 3Com vs. Via NIC, I guess. I'll suggest trying out
> IPFilter (ipf) and let us know of the results.
Yeah, and I run ipfirewall/divert/natd on PII-300's between xl0 and fxp0
and have no thruput problems. I don't remember what or if he said his
firewall ruleset was like, or if
ing is the additional copy required by the
> vr0 interrupts the rhythm between your inside client and the outside
> cable system so that data doesn't stream at full rate when passing thru
> but is OK when it stops at the FreeBSD firewall/router/gateway.
>
> In a PII-300 system I use a
dy Swanson'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 4:55 PM
Subject: RE: Performance issues with natd
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Kenneth Culver wrote:
>
> > > I agree with the hardware diagnosis. I have almost the same setup
On Wednesday 25 September 2002 05:21 pm, Kenneth Culver wrote:
[...]
>
> All that said, it wouldn't hurt to try to use ipfilter or something
> like that... that would avoid any extra money being spent if it
> solves the problem (I doubt that it will but it might).
It would be very easy to swap in
have
> to measure carefully to detect any thruput blockage.
>
> My guess as to what is happening is the additional copy required by the
> vr0 interrupts the rhythm between your inside client and the outside
> cable system so that data doesn't stream at full rate when passing thru
> Yeh, but is he downloading from the same place with every test?
> To be honest, you should be testing the performace across a
> reliable link that doesn't change. This way you can tell if it is
> related to the machine versus it being an upstream network
> problem/
onal copy required by the
vr0 interrupts the rhythm between your inside client and the outside
cable system so that data doesn't stream at full rate when passing thru
but is OK when it stops at the FreeBSD firewall/router/gateway.
In a PII-300 system I use an onboard 3c905 and an Intel 10/100.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Kenneth Culver wrote:
> > I agree with the hardware diagnosis. I have almost the same setup on a
> > nat box that I run, and everything works perfectly. I get good transfer
> > speeds, and I use two 3c905b cards from 3com. I would say check and
> > re-check your hardware. Goo
> I agree with the hardware diagnosis. I have almost the same setup on a
> nat box that I run, and everything works perfectly. I get good transfer
> speeds, and I use two 3c905b cards from 3com. I would say check and
> re-check your hardware. Good luck.
I don't think I agree, he's getting 400 KB/
on a
> download through the NAT box. Again, if I download on the box it self I
> can see 400k/sec.
I'm not sure what the problem is with your natd setup, it looks fine to
me however have you tried ipfilter? I use that on my own home net, and
I get the same throughput from behind th
If someone could clear this up for me, it would be most appreciated.
Dual homed host, internal net is 192.168.0.0/24 external is DHCP
I have the following lines in my ipfw rules.
${oif}=outside interface
${natdif}=natd interface(which is same as {oif})
...
${fwcmd} add divert natd all from any
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 2:11 PM
To: Cody Swanson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Performance issues with natd
it is not necessarily a NATD issue. your setup looks
fine. the cards, however, are not exactly new
it is not necessarily a NATD issue. your setup looks
fine. the cards, however, are not exactly new. might
wanna check your hardware. if not your hardware, then
maybe someone here can give you a way to improve the
transfer rate but i really think it has most to do with
your hardware
Hello all,
I just setup a 4.6.2 machine locally on my network at home to replace an
aging Linux NAT box I had going. Clients behind the new box can only get
100k/sec downloads while clients behind the old Linux box (running ipchains)
get 400k/sec+ downloads off the same cable modem. Locally on th
From: "JoeB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "dfolkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:54 AM
Subject: RE: ipfw, natd, and keep-state - unexpected dynamic rules generated
> So you have fallen into the dirty secret about FBSD and IPFW/keep-stat
hi everybody,
i have a fbsd 4.6 router box sitting between a local net (192.168.0.255) and
a
single actual ip from a cable modem. naturally, ive set up natd and ipfw on
it, but instead of going the old way with the semi-stateful rules i decided
to go with keep-state/check-state. but problems
ought about bridging tun0 to fxp1 ... but not sure if that'll do
anything?). The problem being that I have to disable natd for any
outgoing transmisions not to be masqueraded upon from the static
subnet; (that is if a machine on the second network sends something
outgoing it's received o
Is PPP trying to do NAT as well as Natd? I use Natd with tun0 all the
time and it works OK..
-D
:-Original Message-
:From: Allan McDonald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
:Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:45 AM
:To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:Subject: ipfw, natd & tun0
:
:
:Hi,
:I'm trying to
Hi,
I'm trying to use natd with port redirection and it's not working..
I have a working model, a box with 2 network cards in it, in which natd port
redirection is working just fine..
and I have another which I am trying to do the same thing, however this poor
box has to connect to th
lies to be blocked (or again,
sent out the wrong way, which makes the reply come from a different IP the
request was fired to .. a hilaric sight :)
Therefore I am thinking of swaying back to ipfw/natd on this box, but I have
a few questions with regard to that:
1) The ipfw fwd command does exactly what
> Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 15:12:39 +0200
> From: Juan Francisco Rodriguez Hervella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "(Lista) [EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Problems with local port redirection with natd
>
> Hello:
>
> I've got a htt
501 - 592 of 592 matches
Mail list logo
