PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: Phillip Watts/austin/Nlynx)
Subject: RE: [Leaf-user] internal NAT question
Oh good grief, don't apologize! I didn't take offense.
I didn't realize that ipmasqadm portfw bypassed ipchains. Actually, I am
glad I know that now since I was thinking of using port
Tony:
Heya. Sorry for chiming in late, I had a busy weekend. :)
I believe the information about ipmasqadm bypassing ipchains is
incorrect. I've always known it to be described as:
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/IPCHAINS-HOWTO-4.html
Some nice ascii art there. Quoting from the
Tony,
The use of ipmasqadm portfw allows the packets to pass untouched by
ipchains.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 5:09 PM
To: Steve Fink; LEAF-List
Subject: RE: [Leaf-user] internal NAT question
Would
: [Leaf-user] internal NAT question
Tony,
The use of ipmasqadm portfw allows the packets to pass untouched by
ipchains.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 5:09 PM
To: Steve Fink; LEAF-List
Subject: RE: [Leaf-user] internal
I have situations in which my vpn router is a peer to a proxy server.
The proxy server is the default gateway for the servers behind it.
Therefore I use NAT on the internal interface to force traffic to the servers
back through the router.
This is approximately the same thing as port
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 9:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Leaf-user] internal NAT question
I have situations in which my vpn router is a peer to a proxy server.
The proxy server is the default gateway for the servers behind
mistaken, and that port forwarding bypasses all
rules.
Thanks,
Tony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Fink
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 3:55 PM
To: LEAF-List
Subject: RE: [Leaf-user] internal NAT question
Phillip
