Am 18.05.2018 um 23:29 schrieb Andrea Venturoli:
…
Let's say I have a router connected to the Internet on one side and to
a LAN with private IPs on the other.
I want some clients from outside to be able to connect to a TCP
service on a machine on the LAN: they should connect to port X on the
fi
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, at 16:01, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> On 05/21/18 18:10, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
>
> > Thanks to anyone who answered.
> >
> > I'm currently trying net/bounce, as suggested by Eugene.
> > If that won't work properly, I'll sure give plugdaemon a shot.
>
> Just an update in case any
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> On 05/21/18 18:10, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
>
> Thanks to anyone who answered.
>>
>> I'm currently trying net/bounce, as suggested by Eugene.
>> If that won't work properly, I'll sure give plugdaemon a shot.
>>
>
> Just an update in case a
On 05/21/18 18:10, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Thanks to anyone who answered.
I'm currently trying net/bounce, as suggested by Eugene.
If that won't work properly, I'll sure give plugdaemon a shot.
Just an update in case anyone is interested...
Bounce is still dying occasionally; in some way it
On 05/21/18 13:16, Luciano Mannucci wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2018 23:29:33 +0200
Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Does anyone have a good suggestion for a program similar to the above ones?
I require nothing fancy, I just want it to be reliable.
The oldest, the simplest, the most reliable (I'm still usin
On Fri, 18 May 2018 23:29:33 +0200
Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> Does anyone have a good suggestion for a program similar to the above ones?
> I require nothing fancy, I just want it to be reliable.
The oldest, the simplest, the most reliable (I'm still using it, and
it shoud be in the ports):
Peter
20.05.2018 0:26, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
>> Additional advantage of this approach is that
>> internal hosts will see real public IP address of connecting external host
>> instead of your own.
>
> This is exactly what I don't want, as, unfortunately, we have some devices
> which will refuse conne
On 05/19/18 00:08, Reshad Patuck wrote:
Hi,
If you are running pf or ipfw on your router you could use a forward
rule to forward connections that come in on a certain internet IP and
port to a select internal IP or port.
Thanks.
I'm in fact using ipfw, but already have quite a complex rule s
On 05/19/18 03:10, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
You don't need any additional software at all.
Just instruct FreeBSD kernel to do what you need, it will do that just fine.
Thanks.
In fact I've used ipfw nat in the past, but I'd rather use a userland
daemon: doing things at rule level makes it more
19.05.2018 4:29, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> Let's say I have a router connected to the Internet on one side and to a LAN
> with private IPs on the other.
> I want some clients from outside to be able to connect to a TCP service on a
> machine on the LAN: they should connect to port X on the firew
Ipfw's internal nat will do this out of the box.
-- Karl
Original Message
From: m...@netfence.it
Sent: May 18, 2018 16:29
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: Proxy a TCP connection
Hello.
Let's say I have a router connected to the Internet on one side and to a
LAN with private IPs on the
Hi,
If you are running pf or ipfw on your router you could use a forward rule to
forward connections that come in on a certain internet IP and port to a select
internal IP or port.
If you don't have a firewall running and can install ports on your router have
a look at relayd, it should do wha
A bit of a follow up.
I was able to get proxying to work through use of sysctl, setting
net.link.ether.inet.proxyall=1 This is mentioned in man 4 arp , not
the usual man 8 arp, pages
However, I never could get it working with individual apr -s commands.
It could be I had a setup problem but I
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 11:09 +0100, Lazar Szilard wrote:
> hi,
>
>
>
> I have a beginner quieston.
>
> I use FreeBSD 7.1-RC1 without X on my notebook.
>
> How can I configure my network to
>
> 1. use proxy to http or ftp connections (proxy address: (10.0.1.1:8080)
>
> or (on another place, w
[ Charset KOI8-U unsupported, converting... ]
> Damien Deville wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > we are facing a similar issue with arp blocked in sbwait state.
> >
> > Here is a way to reproduce it:
> > - add a bunch of arp entries in your arp table (best is around 255
> > entries).
> > - launch two arp -
Hi,
after some more tests here is what i came to (patch provided is for
freebsd 6.3 but can be adapted for other versions): it is a dirty hack
and might not be the right solution but it is working in the case i
described earlier and i hope it will help discussing the issue.
It seems that the
Damien Deville wrote:
Hi,
we are facing a similar issue with arp blocked in sbwait state.
Here is a way to reproduce it:
- add a bunch of arp entries in your arp table (best is around 255
entries).
- launch two arp -a -d in parallel ('arp -a -d & arp -a -d &')
Both processes will be in concu
Hi,
we are facing a similar issue with arp blocked in sbwait state.
Here is a way to reproduce it:
- add a bunch of arp entries in your arp table (best is around 255 entries).
- launch two arp -a -d in parallel ('arp -a -d & arp -a -d &')
Both processes will be in concurence to access the table
Oleksandr Samoylyk пишет:
Dear Community,
I'm using proxy-arp for public ips for our clients in order to give them
internet access using pptp-tunnels with mpd:
# cat /usr/local/etc/mpd5/mpd.conf | grep arp
set iface enable proxy-arp
# uname -a
FreeBSD xxx.xx.xxx 7.0-STABLE FreeBS
Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 02:17:37PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
I must be doing something wrong. I can't seem to get proxy arp to work. Is
there some magic.
I've been using proxy ARP on FreeBSD between 4.x and 6.2 without problems
(though I think I skipped 6.1).
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 02:17:37PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
>I must be doing something wrong. I can't seem to get proxy arp to work. Is
>there some magic.
I've been using proxy ARP on FreeBSD between 4.x and 6.2 without problems
(though I think I skipped 6.1).
>I have the following setup isp
Stephen Clark wrote:
Hello List,
I must be doing something wrong. I can't seem to get proxy arp to work.
Is there some
magic.
I have the following setup isp router 205.x.x.1 <-> 205.x.x.100/25 rl1
freebsd vr0 205.x.x.129/25
<-> 205.x.x.193/25
arp -an
(205.x.x.1) at 00:13:7f:5a:b5:50 on rl1
On Oct 24, 2007, at 11:17 AM, Stephen Clark wrote:
I must be doing something wrong. I can't seem to get proxy arp to
work. Is there some
magic.
I have the following setup isp router 205.x.x.1 <-> 205.x.x.100/25
rl1 freebsd vr0 205.x.x.129/25
<-> 205.x.x.193/25
I'm not really sure what you
On Aug 13, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Jon Otterholm wrote:
This is a problem because some clients interpret this as an ip-
address conflict.
Are you sure that your router is issuing the ARPOP_REQUESTS?
Is the entry you've published already listed in "arp -a"?
Yes, the entry is already listed as an st
Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Aug 13, 2007, at 7:34 AM, Jon Otterholm wrote:
I have a problem with proxy-arp entries.
If I add an arp-entry:
arp -s $hostip $routermac permanent pub only
the router sends an arp and replies to it's own arp like:
15:40:02.074419 arp who-has $hostip tell $hostip
15:40:
On Aug 13, 2007, at 7:34 AM, Jon Otterholm wrote:
I have a problem with proxy-arp entries.
If I add an arp-entry:
arp -s $hostip $routermac permanent pub only
the router sends an arp and replies to it's own arp like:
15:40:02.074419 arp who-has $hostip tell $hostip
15:40:02.074663 arp reply $
Douglass, Erik (EDouglass) writes:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I know this may sound as if I am biting off a bit more than I can chew
> as I don't have much exp with FreeBSD or Unix. I work at a hotel, and
> have been tasked to implement a proxy for all of the guest rooms that
> displays an html legal di
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 11:52 -0400, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Iasen Kostov wrote:
> > IMHO proxy arp should only replay on specified interface not on every
> > arp capable interface which recieved request for the proxied address.
>
> This is an interesting idea, but shouldn't it at least take into
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 14:32 +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Iasen,
>
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 05:58:55PM +0300, Iasen Kostov wrote:
> I>IMHO proxy arp should only replay on specified interface not on every
> I> arp capable interface which recieved request for the proxied address.
> I> If lets
Iasen,
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 05:58:55PM +0300, Iasen Kostov wrote:
I> IMHO proxy arp should only replay on specified interface not on every
I> arp capable interface which recieved request for the proxied address.
I> If lets say host A have arp capable if0 and if1 interfaces and U set:
I>
Iasen Kostov wrote:
IMHO proxy arp should only replay on specified interface not on every
arp capable interface which recieved request for the proxied address.
This is an interesting idea, but shouldn't it at least take into consideration
whether some interfaces are being bridged...?
31 matches
Mail list logo
