Re: MPD + NETGRAPH and BRIDGING

2003-02-04 Thread Archie Cobbs
Thomas Gielfeldt wrote: > Would it be possible to implement a feature in MPD which allows you to > create a node of type ng_ether instead of ng_iface to allow bridging the > client onto the network instead of routing it? You would have to implement bridging via PPP, which is different from what PP

Re: Does natd(8) really need to see _all_ packets?

2003-02-04 Thread Scott Hess
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > On Tuesday 04 February 2003 06:44 pm, Wes Peters wrote: > = On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 08:42, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > = > Using two cards, were one works fine is against aesthetics :-) > = > That's my primary reason, although there are only two slots left in

Re: Does natd(8) really need to see _all_ packets?

2003-02-04 Thread Mikhail Teterin
On Tuesday 04 February 2003 06:44 pm, Wes Peters wrote: = On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 08:42, Mikhail Teterin wrote: = > On Monday 03 February 2003 08:19 pm, Wes Peters wrote: = > = On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 05:27, Mikhail Teterin wrote: = > = > Hi! = > = > = > = > This question bothered me for a while -- mo

Re: Does natd(8) really need to see _all_ packets?

2003-02-04 Thread Wes Peters
On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 08:42, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > On Monday 03 February 2003 08:19 pm, Wes Peters wrote: > = On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 05:27, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > = > Hi! > = > > = > This question bothered me for a while -- most of the traffic on my > = > LAN is just that -- local. Yet my gw/f

Re: Does natd(8) really need to see _all_ packets?

2003-02-04 Thread Barney Wolff
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 11:42:28AM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > > Finally, since the LAN consists of the private network addresses, which > are not allowed through ISPs routers from the outside, the only danger > is another subscriber on the same segment of the ISPs network or a > wireless LAN

Re: Does natd(8) really need to see _all_ packets?

2003-02-04 Thread Mikhail Teterin
On Monday 03 February 2003 08:19 pm, Wes Peters wrote: = On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 05:27, Mikhail Teterin wrote: = > Hi! = > = > This question bothered me for a while -- most of the traffic on my = > LAN is just that -- local. Yet my gw/firewall machine only has one = > interface -- with two IP addres

Re: Does natd(8) really need to see _all_ packets?

2003-02-04 Thread Michael Sierchio
Mikhail Teterin wrote: > Does natd(8) really need to see _all_ packets? Not at all, as you've guessed. Subtleties abound with stateful rules, and side effects of using the divert mechanism, such as: after returning from natd packets don't know which interface they came in on. Matching rules the

Re: Does natd(8) really need to see _all_ packets?

2003-02-04 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 08:00:46AM +0200, Emilian Ursu wrote: > > > On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > > > > your best solution is to add a skipto before the divert rule. > > > > Thank you, Barry, but is not that what I'm doing in the sample? > > > > > You can therefore skip any traffi

Re: Fwd: pseudo-device gre and wccp/squid

2003-02-04 Thread Maxim Sobolev
Hi, It works here like a charm, but with ipfw(8), not ipfilter(8), so that it might be where the problem is. The setup is as follows: /etc/rc.firewall: [...] ${fwcmd} add fwd 127.0.0.1,3128 tcp from A.B.C.0/28 to any 80 via gre0 in ${fwcmd} add fwd 127.0.0.1,3128 tcp from

Re: Does natd(8) really need to see _all_ packets?

2003-02-04 Thread Wes Peters
On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 05:27, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > Hi! > > This question bothered me for a while -- most of the traffic on my LAN > is just that -- local. Yet my gw/firewall machine only has one interface > -- with two IP addresses -- private and public on it. > > The DSL modem is plugged into