S multi-map) 209.41.98.2:27015 (DoD)
>209.41.98.2:27017 (CS militia/dust2)Dallas, TX
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Florian Zschocke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 4:25 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Now I've switched to a new ISP, and they have just assigned me 7 statics,
> but they are all part of a .192 subnet. I don't want to go back to having
> all my machines plugged into a hub directly accessable to the internet. How
> can I use my 2 NIC machine as a router/firewall with this new se
t2)Dallas, TX
> -Original Message-
> From: Florian Zschocke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 4:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OT: Routing securely
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I think Florian is direct to list. I don't think he uses Ken's newsgroup
> server.
Correct.
> In essence, you bind all of your public IPs that the ISP has given you to
> your public NIC. Thus, it will accept any traffic thrown at it from the
> world. You then crea
ron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OT: Routing securely
>
>
> Hrm - Florians msg didn't show up in my mail - newsgroup only?
>
> Originally I had my linux box doing my routing/firewa
Khyron wrote:
>
> Hrm - Florians msg didn't show up in my mail - newsgroup only?
Nope.
> The new ISP is doing it the old way, they don't issue subnets, just random
> single statics. My set includes x.194, 195, 196, 197, 208, 209. x.193 is
> their gateway. Subnet mask is .192
Aaah, I see, so it'
Damnit, I miskeyed.
I'll have what I intended to send up here in a minute
Stan
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 4:10 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] OT: Routing se
eate 1-to-1 NAT mappings from the public IPs to the
private IPs of your game servers:
207.151.100.194
207.151.100.194
207.151.100.194
207.151.100.194
> -Original Message-
> From: Khyron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECT
ll. Works, but insecure as hell.
Regards,
Khyron
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 2:01 AM
Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] OT: Routing securely
> IIRC Florian, he didn't want to have to re-compile his kern
:27015 (DoD)
209.41.98.2:27017 (CS militia/dust2)Dallas, TX
> -Original Message-
> From: Florian Zschocke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 2:23 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OT: Routing securely
>
>
> Khyron wr
Khyron wrote:
>
> Yah I could NAT with a 10.x or whatever, but avoiding NAT is the reason I
> paid extra for the statics. I've been looking at Arp Proxy, but any of those
> that I found on the net assumes you have a full subnet, as opposed to my
> situation (several statics that are not all in seq
m0gely wrote:
> he just said he has 7 static ip's?! What the heck would he wanna use
> NAT for?
NAT != ip_masq, although this is a common misconception. ip_masq allows
you to share 1 IP with multiple machines. With NAT, you simply set up
your gateway/firewall box with all your IPs and then trans
Leif Sawyer wrote:
> Well, not an easy task. You can't route the packets.
>
> What you _can_ do, is use NAT, network address translation.
>
> NAT in combination with IP filtering will keep your boxes
> from being completely on the internet, but still allow outside
> users to connect.
>
> There ar
Well, not an easy task. You can't route the packets.
What you _can_ do, is use NAT, network address translation.
NAT in combination with IP filtering will keep your boxes
from being completely on the internet, but still allow outside
users to connect.
There are quite a few caveats to doing thi
14 matches
Mail list logo
