Maxim Konovalov wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, 23:01+0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
ipfw seems to have developed a bug lately on 5-CURRENT;
# ipfw add 2042 allow tcp from 0.0.0.0/0 to me
42
02042 allow tcp from me to me dst-port 42
It used to work that 0.0.0.0/0 was "any" instead of "me". Last I che
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, 23:01+0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
>
> ipfw seems to have developed a bug lately on 5-CURRENT;
> # ipfw add 2042 allow tcp from 0.0.0.0/0 to me
> 42
> 02042 allow tcp from me to me dst-port 42
>
> It used to work that 0.0.0.0/0 was "any" instead of "me". Last I checked
> the no
ipfw seems to have developed a bug lately on 5-CURRENT;
# ipfw add 2042 allow tcp from 0.0.0.0/0 to me
42
02042 allow tcp from me to me dst-port 42
It used to work that 0.0.0.0/0 was "any" instead of "me". Last I checked
the notation is also widely used in netwo
Olivier Nicole wrote:
Christoffer Pio wrote:
Is it not possible to subnet a C class into 3 nets, like
0-63
64-191 <-- Offending network (?)
192-255
If so, why is this?
I think you got explanations on the why.
Now it should still be possible to subnet the way you want I think.
While I would n
Hi,
I found the problem in : sysctl -w net.inet.ip.forwarding=1
After i fix the problem the routes works fine. But then I know the VPN
solutions is not the answer for the questions since lately I know that in
real fact the 2 networks I try to connected is a Collide network !
The clients in A si
Christoffer Pio wrote:
> Is it not possible to subnet a C class into 3 nets, like
>
> 0-63
> 64-191 <-- Offending network (?)
> 192-255
>
> If so, why is this?
I think you got explanations on the why.
Now it should still be possible to subnet the way you want I think.
While I would never recom
