On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 03:56:58PM +0800, Yusuf Goolamabbas wrote:
> Hi, In the Linux netfilter world, there exists a kernel/netfilter
> patch called iplimit which does what the subject mention
>
> Is there anything similar in freebsd or can this be emulated via ipfw
> in any form
of course :)
Hi, In the Linux netfilter world, there exists a kernel/netfilter
patch called iplimit which does what the subject mention
Is there anything similar in freebsd or can this be emulated via ipfw
in any form
http://www.netfilter.org/documentation/HOWTO/netfilter-extensions-HOWTO.html#toc3.3
Regard
"Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> Why not?
>
> map if0 192.168.100.0/24 -> 192.0.2.10/32 portmap tcp/udp auto
> map if0 192.168.100.0/24 -> 192.0.2.10/32
> bimap if0 192.168.100.1/32 -> 192.0.2.10/32
> map if0 172.16.0.0/16 -> 192.0.2.12/32 portmap tcp/udp auto
> map if0 172.16.0.0/16 -> 192.0
"Crist J. Clark" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 12:44:26PM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> > > I forgot point out that ipnat(8) will do this as-is if that is an
> > > option for you.
> >
> > Hmm, I've read man ipnat and still not sure how can I achieve
> > a combination of redirection ip<->ip
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 12:44:26PM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> > I forgot point out that ipnat(8) will do this as-is if that is an
> > option for you.
>
> Hmm, I've read man ipnat and still not sure how can I achieve
> a combination of redirection ip<->ip and map net<->ip.
Why not?
map i
> I forgot point out that ipnat(8) will do this as-is if that is an
> option for you.
Hmm, I've read man ipnat and still not sure how can I achieve
a combination of redirection ip<->ip and map net<->ip.
Eugene
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> My question is this: Is anyone aware of a reason that using 49152-65535
> by default would cause problems today?
NetBSD has moved to the new range:
jasper@jellycat:~/[0]> sysctl -a | grep port
net.inet.ip.anonportmin = 49152
net.inet.ip.anonportm
On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 09:35 AM, Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> By filing PR docs/32041, Mark Blackman has reminded me of an issue that
> has been nagging me for some time now. As Mark points out, one of the
> likely problems in the sysadmin mag benchmark run last spring was that
> the
> s
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:51:09AM -0800, W Alexander Hagen wrote:
>
> The problem only occurs during large file transfers. This box has 10 10/100 cards
>and is acting as a router.
> Are there any sysctl parameters that I should look at to optimize operation as a
>router ?
Optimization or not
The problem only occurs during large file transfers. This box has 10 10/100 cards and is acting as a router.
Are there any sysctl parameters that I should look at to optimize operation as a router ?
Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, W Alexander Hagen wrote:>> How d
By filing PR docs/32041, Mark Blackman has reminded me of an issue that
has been nagging me for some time now. As Mark points out, one of the
likely problems in the sysadmin mag benchmark run last spring was that the
system ran out of ephemeral ports. Unforunately, nobody caught this at
the tim
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 01:22:18AM -0800, Crist J. Clark wrote:
> If it requires an application layer proxy, and you are using ipnat(8),
> you can go look for IPFilter resources like,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want to change to natd(8), you can
> try to make your own alias_quake.c for src/lib/lib
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, W Alexander Hagen wrote:
>
> How do I find out how to run the box so it outputs the errant code line
> when it crashes ? Is there a good faq ?
Check out:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/developers-handbook/kerneldebug.html
Part 16.4, "On-Line Kernel Debu
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 04:26:19PM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> "Crist J. Clark" wrote:
>
> > > Would it be hard to implement this?
> >
> > Probably not too bad. Apparently no stampede for this functionality
> > though. There usually is not a lot to gain by mapping different
> > internal netw
"Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> > Would it be hard to implement this?
>
> Probably not too bad. Apparently no stampede for this functionality
> though. There usually is not a lot to gain by mapping different
> internal networks to different external addresses except maybe some
> warm fuzzies.
Conside
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:23:34AM +0200, Nerijus Bendziunas wrote:
> hi,
> I have problem:
> LAN<->Server(FreeBSD 4.5 Stable ipnat)<->internet
> Users want to play games like quake, counter strike, etc( games that use udp).
> They can make only one conection per server.
> for example:
> if someon
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 02:31:12PM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> "Crist J. Clark" wrote:
>
> > > Suppose we have many tens of separated private networks each having its own
> > > public address and own gateway. Is is possible to configure natd to do
> > > static nat for network masks, not only
I'm glad someone else has mentioned this as I have had similar PCMCIA
problems with my Tosh Tecra 8100 laptop and I've had to revert back to 4.3.
Owen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Greg Black
Sent: 19 March 2002 02:03
To: Mike Silbersac
18 matches
Mail list logo
