Cool, thanks. Yes, there's now two subnets on the internal network. I
changed the IP on the backend here's the config details:
# /etc/rc.conf excerpt
ifconfig_ed0="inet 206.169.18.10 netmask 255.255.255.0"
ifconfig_ep0="inet 10.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.128"
ifconfig_ep0_alias0="inet 10.0.0.129 netmask 255.255.255.128"
# /etc/natd.conf
use_sockets
same_ports
port 8668
deny_incoming no
log
redirect_port tcp 10.0.0.130:80 206.169.18.10:80
# /etc/rc.firewall
/sbin/ipfw -f flush
/sbin/ipfw add divert natd all from any to any via ed0
/sbin/ipfw add pass all from any to any
So if you can suss the incantation that allows 10.0.0.0/25 hosts to access
10.0.0.130 via 206.169.18.10, I think I'd be all set!
thanks,
-Ian
--
Ian Kallen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | AIM: iankallen | efax: (415) 354-3326
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Nick Rogness wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Ian Kallen wrote:
>
> > Well, I've been fiddling with the ipfw syntax, I thought this would do it
> > /sbin/ipfw add divert 80 all from 10.0.0.128/25 to 206.169.18.10 via ep0
> > but that ain't it.
> >
> > 10.0.0.128/25 has servers, 10.0.0.0/25 has clients, both gateways
> > 10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.129 run off ep0... yes, I've been reading the ipfw man
> > page and the archives, yet even though the two nets can access each other
> > directly, I haven't been able to get the clients to access any server
> > resources via the 206.169.18.10 nat. Further suggestions?
>
> I have had this same problem before and have solved it when
> dealing with setup of a DMZ using FreeBSD.
>
> This is actually a pretty tricky ipfw setup to get it to work
> right (depending on network layout). Let me see if I can give you
> the details. But first I need a tad more details on how your
> network is laid out.
>
> Are 10.0.0.129 & 10.0.0.1 bound to the same ethernet card?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
