On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 03:55:12PM -0600, Will Trillich wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 08:01:14PM +0000, Hugh Saunders wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 09:43:34AM -0800, nate wrote: > > > Hugh Saunders said: > > > another reason I don't use it is I prefer firewalls over it. > > Hmmm i guess iptables would be better but i dont speak iptables yet and > > hosts seemed like a quick fix and as with most quik fixes, it probably > > isnt the best way of doing things. > > i predict you'll be delighted at how many things are solved by > just doing this: > > apt-get install ipmasq did that a while ago but doesnt mean i understand!
I have this script that is run by init: #!/bin/sh iptables -t nat -F POSTROUTING iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wlan0 -j MASQUERADE echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward this was written at the pub during a surreyLUG meeting by a very helpfull chap. It certainly does the job [ie anything on the wlan0 side of things can communicate with anything on the wired net eth0 is on]. How do i route without NATing? so that the sending ip address is not mangled by the router? thanks hugh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
