Re: home network

2006-05-19 Thread Terry
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:40:35AM -0500, Travis H. wrote: > On 5/19/06, Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I was able to get directly to the web intervace with my laptop > >connected to one of the ports. I gave the wrt 192.168.1.9 and then put > >that address into

Re: home network

2006-05-19 Thread Terry
web intervace with my laptop connected to one of the ports. I gave the wrt 192.168.1.9 and then put that address into firefox and there it was. I didn't have to do anything special. -- Terry L. Tyson Jr. http://tyson.homeunix.org

Re: home network

2006-05-17 Thread Terry
irmware supports this. This is how I am bridging the > wireless linksys network to > my wired lan. It works. ;) Thanks for the tip. Now, when I get my wireless nic tomorrow, I'll see how the wireless part works. -- Terry L. Tyson Jr. H:281.427.0077 W:832.325.3838 http://tyson.homeunix.org

Re: home network

2006-05-16 Thread Terry
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 11:41:51AM -0500, Travis H. wrote: > You want your cake AND you want to eat it? Ambitious! Perhaps a little too ambitious for my level of experience. ;p Thanks for the input. I think I'll simplify the plan a little till I can get more experience with pf. --

home network

2006-05-16 Thread Terry
ay to help me admin the system from the outside. Also, I'm still looking into learning how to use the Linksys WRT54G in "bridge mode." As I understand it, I will need to do this. I would appreciate any input on this idea. Thanks -- Terry http://tyson.homeunix.org

RE: CheckPoint SecureRemote Client through pf

2003-03-03 Thread Terry Baranski
packet never made it back to me", etc. I think the likelihood is that this isn't a PF issue (though anything's possible), so we're probably in OT territory at this point. Feel free to respond to me directly. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL P

RE: CheckPoint SecureRemote Client through pf

2003-03-01 Thread Terry Baranski
Works fine here as well. There are issues when the NAT'd network behind the user's firewall overlaps with the destination encryption domain, but that's about it AFAIK. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Camiel Dobbelaar Sent: Saturday, March