On 10/11/2013 9:59 AM, Tom Eastep wrote:
> On 10/11/2013 4:52 AM, HL wrote:
>> In Multi ISP env having a static route on the FW itself impies that the
>> remote host is forced to communicate over the same path that the static
>> route indicates ??
>> In other words,
>> If ip route add 173.194.39
I'm really glad you posted that epilog. I actually woke up this morning
thinking about what you might find. Thanks.
--
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performa
On 10/11/2013 4:52 AM, HL wrote:
> In Multi ISP env having a static route on the FW itself impies that the
> remote host is forced to communicate over the same path that the static
> route indicates ??
> In other words,
> If ip route add 173.194.39.212/32 via ISP1 is placed on the fw,
> and
On 10/10/13 16:19, Brian Burch wrote:
> My situation is unconventional, but very similar to the general case. I
> have a rogue web client (not sure if it is buggy software or malware)
> that occasionally tries to connect to my firewall's snat external ip
> address on port 80. The syn's are rejected
In Multi ISP env having a static route on the FW itself impies that the
remote host is forced to communicate over the same path that the static
route indicates ??
In other words,
If ip route add 173.194.39.212/32 via ISP1 is placed on the fw,
and
provided that there is static ip prefix vv.
Glad we could help you.
Thanks Dominic, I just had a big "duh" moment regarding original dest.
On Oct 11, 2013 12:39 AM, "Brian Burch" wrote:
> I'm in the UK and have been asleep, so I apologise if it seems I was
> ignoring your suggestions.
>
> This post should bring everyone up to date, but i
I'm in the UK and have been asleep, so I apologise if it seems I was
ignoring your suggestions.
This post should bring everyone up to date, but it means I will have to
top-post so that my reply makes chronological sense.
1. I've been there before, but I reconfigured like this:
REDIRECT
