I want 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.1.3 to have a direct internet connection.
I want 192.168.1.4 and 192.168.1.5 to use squid on 3128.
In 10.2 I masqueraded 2 and 3 and redirected 4 and 5.
On 10.3 my 10.2 SuSEfirewall2 script redirects but doesn't masquerade even
though I changed the if names.
primm wrote:
I want 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.1.3 to have a direct internet connection.
I want 192.168.1.4 and 192.168.1.5 to use squid on 3128.
In 10.2 I masqueraded 2 and 3 and redirected 4 and 5.
On 10.3 my 10.2 SuSEfirewall2 script redirects but doesn't masquerade even
though I
Could you clarify your network topology?
Yes. My firewall script worked perfectly in 10.2. It did exactly what I
wanted.
I've tried asking the same question before in many guises: why doesn't the
10.2 firewall script work with 10.3?
Clarifying further, all traffic passes through the
primm wrote:
Could you clarify your network topology?
Yes. My firewall script worked perfectly in 10.2. It did exactly what I
wanted.
That could well be, but since I don't have a good idea of exactly what's going
on in your lan it's hard to say.
I've tried asking the same question
So we have a 192.168.1.x net on the lan side and a 192.168.0.x net on the
adsl side of the linux router correct?
Yes. It's as simple as that. I want some machines to have direct access all
the time and some machines to be controlled by the proxy. IOW I can turn the
Internet on or off for
On 10/28/2007 05:56 AM, primm wrote:
So we have a 192.168.1.x net on the lan side and a 192.168.0.x net on the
adsl side of the linux router correct?
Yes. It's as simple as that. I want some machines to have direct access all
the time and some machines to be controlled by the proxy.
On Sunday 28 October 2007 01:31:38 Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:
On 10/28/2007 05:56 AM, primm wrote:
So we have a 192.168.1.x net on the lan side and a 192.168.0.x net on
the adsl side of the linux router correct?
Yes. It's as simple as that. I want some machines to have direct access
all
On 10/28/2007 08:49 AM, primm wrote:
Thanks for the confirmation. I thought it was me going mad.
That's exactly what I had in 10.2 (except I had /24 not /32 as the mask) and
what I've tried to do in 10.3.
I would use /32 since you are talking an exact IP address. After
rereading your
