[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now i =ave tried the likes of "ipfw add divert natd all from
10.150.200.= 35 to 196.25.211.150 via tun0"
And that does not work. Ive tried many examples. And cannot come right
That is fine, but you need to make sure the packets for both directions
of the conn
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:26:45PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I am still having huge troubles with using natd with the "divert natd"
>= in ipfw.
>I can only nat all my traffic or none.
>What i would = like to do is simply nat accoring to box or service for
>a particular bo
I am still having huge troubles with using natd with the "divert natd"
= in ipfw.
I can only nat all my traffic or none.
What i would = like to do is simply nat accoring to box or service for
a particular bo= x.
This is a example of what works for natting all traffic.
<= BR>ip
Nice work!
Is possible to implement a "port address forwarding" (aka PAT) using some
ipfw rules? (or with any other way)
Something similar to "-redirect_port" option of natd(8).
TIA,
Chris.
Paolo Pisati wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:41:16AM +, Nate Nielsen wrote:
No. I think ea
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:41:16AM +, Nate Nielsen wrote:
> No. I think each instance of natd (at least last time I looked at it)
> could only use one IP address as it's public address.
FYI you can use nat inside ipfw[*]:
ipfw nat 1 config ip 192.168.0.123
ipfw nat 2 config ip 192.168.0.456
.
Nate Nielsen (nielsen-list) writes:
> No. I think each instance of natd (at least last time I looked at it)
> could only use one IP address as it's public address.
One could use probability rules to divert to different natds with
different NAT addresses, and use choparp / aliases t
No. I think each instance of natd (at least last time I looked at it)
could only use one IP address as it's public address.
Cheers,
Nate
Daniel Dias Gonçalves wrote:
> Exists the possibility to make NAT POOL with IPFW + NATD ?
>
___
free
Exists the possibility to make NAT POOL with IPFW + NATD ?
-- daniel
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
konstantinos.dryllera...@dg21.cec.be writes:
> I believe the problem that I am facing is common enough, but I have failed to
> find any extra information except some old postings describing possible
> changes to natd/ipfw behaviour in the future which do not seem to have taken
> place.
Yes, the
Hi,
configuring nat is a bit tricky, even more so if your machine is
configured to do routing, but it is doable.
In particular, you surely can filter packets before natd'ing them,
using sequences like
deny ip from unprivileged_ip to outside_ip
deny tcp from privileged_ip to outsi
--
James E. HousleyPGP: 1024/03983B4D
System Supply, Inc. 2C 3F 3A 0D A8 D8 C3 13
Pager: page...@notepage.com 7C F0 B5 BF 27 8B 92 FE
"The box said 'Requires Windows 95, NT, or better,' so I installed
FreeBSD"--- Begin Mes
> -Original Message-
> From: konstantinos.dryllera...@dg21.cec.be
> [SMTP:konstantinos.dryllera...@dg21.cec.be]
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 1999 11:15 AM
> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; freebsd-quest...@freebsd.org
> Subject: ipfw/natd limitation: contro
controlling a company net with
unregistered IP address to the Internet via a multi-homed FreeBSD box using
ipfw/natd. According to my understanding, all packets going through the outer
interface of the mutli-homed machine should be diverted to natd as soon as
possible. The problem appears to be that
13 matches
Mail list logo
