, but
why is it so difficult to do it with iptables ?
Alon.
- Original Message -
From: Oded Arbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David Harel [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Linux-IL mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: wingate equivalent in Linux.
On Thursday
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 05 September 2003 12:54, Oleg Kobets wrote:
Why doing it with iptables is pain to manage ? It's darn easy to do.
Take a little filey, write the iptables command and save the filey. Then
execute the filey or put it in rc scripts or
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 03:24:59AM +0300, Ilya Konstantinov wrote:
Forwarding ports with iptables is easy -- you create a DNAT (destination NAT)
rule:
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 7002 \
-j DNAT --to 10.0.0.2:7002
(assuming 10.0.0.2 is the Windows box)
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 03:56:20PM +0300, Shaul Karl wrote:
Isn't there a small probability that 7002 will be allocated
dynamically to another application too? We don't want anything that uses
7002 to be DNATed like that.
This risk exists without a NAT configuration as well: the system can
. (and that's bad)
Alon.
- Original Message -
From: David Harel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Linux-IL mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 4:32 PM
Subject: wingate equivalent in Linux.
Hi,
My older son wants to play CounterStrike on the Internet.
Currently his
On Friday 05 September 2003 02:01, Oded Arbel wrote:
On Thursday 04 September 2003 17:32, David Harel wrote:
The way CounterStrike uses a proxy machine require mapping of ports like:
New TCP Service, name it Half-Life Auth Server. Accept connections on
port 7002. Enable default mapping to
