On 2013-10-08 06:21, Chris Stankevitz wrote:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/network-natd.html
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2011-April/229017.html
Hello,
Handbook section 31.9.3 suggests I should, among other things, add the
line ipdivert_load="YES" to /boot/loader.
Olivier Nicole wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> The mailing list message linked above suggests that the handbook
>> information is the "old way" and that the correct way is to set
>> ipfw_enable and natd_enable in rc.conf. "Then /etc/rc.d/ipfw will
>> load ipfw.ko, and if natd_enable is set, will invoke /etc/
Chris,
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Chris Stankevitz
wrote:
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/network-natd.html
>
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2011-April/229017.html
>
> Hello,
>
> Handbook section 31.9.3 suggests I should, among other things, add the
> line ipdi
Problem solved, changed the mtu/mru in ppp.conf, now its working ;-)
From: Dánielisz László
To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org"
Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 8:20:36 AM
Subject: nat problems
Hi,
I'm behind a freebsd - pf machine, I'd like to connect to a webpag
Anton wrote:
>
>Hello everyone,
>
>I'm kind of noob in FreeBSD particularily, and in Unix systems at all
>:- ). But, I've already mastered an router on freebsd 7.2, which
>worked fine u ntil I installed their MySQL with huge database.
>
>Now, once a day, I have a problem - u
Hi Richard,
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 2:30 AM, Richard Yang wrote:
> thank you, usleep (nice name)i somehow made it work by
> 1. add "redirect_port udp 10.0.0.200:5 5" in natd.conf
> 2. allow all traffic and diversion in ipfw.rules
>
> i tried to limit the traffic by modifying the rules in
thank you, usleep (nice name)i somehow made it work by
1. add "redirect_port udp 10.0.0.200:5 5" in natd.conf
2. allow all traffic and diversion in ipfw.rules
i tried to limit the traffic by modifying the rules in ipfw.rules,
but unsuccessfully. so i just leave it be at this moment.
i am v
Hi Ricard,
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Richard Yang wrote:
> hi,
> i have a ssh machine behind a freebsd firewall with nat and ipfw.
> how do i make port forwarding so internet can access the ssh machine?
> thanx
>
i think you need to configure /etc/ipnat.conf ( read 'man ipnat' ). this is
"Richard Yang" writes:
> i have a ssh machine behind a freebsd firewall with nat and ipfw.
> how do i make port forwarding so internet can access the ssh machine?
Use 'redirect_port' with natd(8).
This is extensively documented in the Handbook:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/networ
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:24 AM, fire jotawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Dominique Goncalves
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:09 AM, fire jotawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Kevin Kinse
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Dominique Goncalves <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:09 AM, fire jotawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Kevin Kinsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> FBSD1 wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> natd_enable="YES"
>> This is no longer true; he did indeed find "firewall_nat_enable"
>> in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. The knob seems to have first appeared
>> in February in HEAD and I'm guessing it cues the system to use a
>> new kernel-based nat rather than natd(8), but I've not read anything
>> further about this,
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:09 AM, fire jotawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Kevin Kinsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> FBSD1 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> natd_enable="YES" This statement in rc.conf enables ipfw nated function.
>>> firewall_nat_enable="YES" This is an
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Kevin Kinsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FBSD1 wrote:
>
>>
>> natd_enable="YES" This statement in rc.conf enables ipfw nated function.
>> firewall_nat_enable="YES" This is an invalid statement. No such thing as
>> you have here.
>>
>
> This is no longer true; h
FBSD1 wrote:
natd_enable="YES" This statement in rc.conf enables ipfw nated function.
firewall_nat_enable="YES" This is an invalid statement. No such thing as
you have here.
This is no longer true; he did indeed find "firewall_nat_enable"
in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. The knob seems to have fir
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:52 PM, FBSD1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of fire jotawski
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:13 PM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: nat and firewall
>
> hi sir
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of fire jotawski
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:13 PM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: nat and firewall
hi sirs,
i am confused now that what is the difference between nat and firewall_nat
in /e
How to configure Gateway ?
man rc.conf (gateway_enable and ipv6_gateway_enable)
see /etc/defaults/rc.conf for reference
How to configure DNS ?
man named.conf
How to configure NAT ?
man natd
man ipfw
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing l
You might want to read the handbook, a lot of your questions are
answered there.
On 2007/03/15 13:44, neo neo seems to have typed:
> hi
>
> i want to do NAT with my FreeBSD . How can i do that ? thankz for reply.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/network-natd.html
> How
On Mar 15, 2007, at 2:44 PM, neo neo wrote:
i want to do NAT with my FreeBSD. How can i do that ? thankz for
reply.
How to configure Gateway ?
How to configure DNS ?
How to configure NAT ?
There's a friendly manual available for you to read:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books
Administrators wrote:
Hi,
I'm building VPN connected to CISCO device.
I NEED to translate my LAN adress to a given adress.
The VPN work well when I try doing
ifconfig em0 alias [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ping -S [EMAIL PROTECTED] dest_@
but I didn't manage to translate LAN adresse AND having VPN used.
There is no way your ISP can cut out NATted traffic.
You would be better off following the handbook firewall section.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Vlad GURDIGA
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 7:16 PM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:
Nick Stenning wrote:
Given what you've said, you should set up the FreeBSD machine as a bridge
rather than a router.
Having now read the manpage for bridge(4) and if_bridge(4), I am not
certain that this is going to achieve what I want to achieve. I'm told
by the FreeBSD HB that "The consensus
> Given what you've said, you should set up the FreeBSD machine as a bridge
> rather than a router.
Having now read the manpage for bridge(4) and if_bridge(4), I am not
certain that this is going to achieve what I want to achieve. I'm told
by the FreeBSD HB that "The consensus is that assigning bo
On 4/6/06, Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Given what you've said, you should set up the FreeBSD machine as a bridge
> rather than a router.
>
> It's possible to do other things, such as changing the NAT address range
> used by rl1 and your Vigor 2600, yet also set up NAT on the FreeBSD
Nick Stenning wrote:
[ ... ]
The second part of the question is perhaps slightly more complex. The
Vigor router has set up on it a LAN-to-LAN PPTP VPN (enough acronyms
for you?) to an office elsewhere. As it stands currently, machines on
the LAN can access (ping/SMB shares) a class C subnet, 192.
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Nick Stenning wrote:
[snip]
> First, NAT'ing. Currently the Vigor router (10.0.0.2) is the default
> router for the network, as specified by the FBSD box's DHCP server. If
> I disconnect the cable I want to disconnect, however, obviously the
> FBSD box will have to be the route
David Ulrich wrote:
[ ... ]
> ### rc.conf ###
> # -- sysinstall generated deltas -- # Wed Mar 15 14:08:02 2006
> # Created: Wed Mar 15 14:08:02 2006
> # Enable network daemons for user convenience.
> # Please make all changes to this file, not to /etc/defaults/rc.conf.
> # T
On 22 Srpen 2005, 15:28, gary masigon napsal(a):
> Hi, i need help to setup my freebsd as a NAT server, i
> cannot ping the external gateway from the client side
> of my FreeBSD server but i can ping the FreeBSD
> server. I followed all the instructions in the hand
> book but i cannot get the clien
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:28:41AM -0700, gary masigon wrote:
> Hi, i need help to setup my freebsd as a NAT server, i
> cannot ping the external gateway from the client side
> of my FreeBSD server but i can ping the FreeBSD
> server. I followed all the instructions in the hand
> book but i cannot
On Friday 24 June 2005 06:25 am, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> Thanks, I think I understand how it works now. I guess it's basically
> like an ordinary router that pretends it's a switch for all addresses
> that appear on the same local network. It looks at the destination
> address in IP packets and the
f Magnusson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 6:25 AM
Subject: Re: NAT router confusion
- Original Message -
From: "Michael H. Semcheski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, June 24, 2005 1:46 am
Subject: Re: NAT router confusion
On Thursday 23
- Original Message -
From: "Michael H. Semcheski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, June 24, 2005 1:46 am
Subject: Re: NAT router confusion
> On Thursday 23 June 2005 07:43 pm, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> > Is this router really some switch/router hybrid? Or..? Bleh
On Thursday 23 June 2005 07:43 pm, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> Is this router really some switch/router hybrid? Or..? Bleh, someone
> please sort this out for me. I realize this isn't strictly
> FreeBSD-related, but I simply couldn't think of a better place to pick
> brains, so I hope I'll be excused :)
Am Montag, 9. Mai 2005 22:29 schrieb Денис Медведев:
> Hello, everybody!
>
> I've just installed freeBSD 5.3 on my old computer to make it NAT
> router for internet sharing. The example is classical: two machines in
> my internal network and one IP from provider. Except one moment - my
> internet c
Hello Frank.
I think you are using ipfilter, but what about the rules on ipfilter.conf?
The handbook has a very good explanation about ipfilter, my rules are based
on the handbook and the ipfilter how to.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/firewalls-ipf.html
http://www.ob
Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This is the rule i presently have in my ppp.conf file
>
> nat port tcp 10.100.6.10:6881-6999 6881-6999
>
> What im wanting to change without the need to use an actual FW is to have it
> so those ports are forwaded across my entire local subnet rather then a
> speci
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:20:45 -0600, Andrew L. Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm running pf in FreeBSD 5.3 on my laptop. The filters for the local
> box work fine.
>
> I'm also working on a pc for a friend; but ran out of ethernet ports in
> my router. This pc doesn't have a wireless adapter
On Friday 21 January 2005 08:20 am, Andrew L. Gould wrote:
> I'm running pf in FreeBSD 5.3 on my laptop. The filters for the
> local box work fine.
>
> I'm also working on a pc for a friend; but ran out of ethernet ports
> in my router. This pc doesn't have a wireless adapter; so I adjusted
> my
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Erik Norgaard wrote:
Tom Huppi wrote:
> So, what do you use for firewall/nat? ipfw/ipf/pf? I think I can
> help you with ipf, if you use something else then I'm sure
> someone can help you once they know they have the knowledge you
> need.
user-ppp has it's own firewall i
Tom Huppi wrote:
I mean one runs NAT, and the other uses it. I've searched various
things and have run into subtle refernences which seem related to
my problem (like 'gethostbyname' isn't even supposed to consult
/etc/hosts), but nothing specific.
Yeah, I sort of guessed that, I was thinking that
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Erik Norgaard wrote:
> Tom Huppi wrote:
> > I have a FreeBSD 5.3 workstation connected to the net via user-ppp
> > with a dynamic IP. I have user-ppp doing both NAT and simple
> > firewall.
> >
> > I have a headless server box, also 5.3, set up as a NAT client.
> > I run i
Tom Huppi wrote:
I have a FreeBSD 5.3 workstation connected to the net via user-ppp
with a dynamic IP. I have user-ppp doing both NAT and simple
firewall.
I have a headless server box, also 5.3, set up as a NAT client.
I run it only when I need the horsepower since it's loud and sucks
power.
My pr
..use a proxy like squid (/usr/ports/www/squid) .
probably easier than setting up NAT and sufficient if you only need
http(s)/ftp(s).
Kind regards,
Alex.
metallarch wrote:
I made the ppp connection from windows to freebsd(tun0), and from freebsd to internet
(tun2)"at the same time"!
I have 2 mode
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 12:36:30PM +0400, metallarch wrote:
>
> I made the ppp connection from windows to freebsd(tun0), and from freebsd to internet
> (tun2)"at the same time"!
> I have 2 modems
> What can i do that i could browse internet on windows over freebsd?
That should certainly be feasib
I've downgraded back to 4.10 and my problems have disapeared. I'm not
sure what has changed in the 5 series to cause these issues. A few
observations I've made though:
netstat -rn gives you a bunch of kvm_read error messages. Also the
output of netstat -rn is completely corrupt (the netif, use, and
What is your firewall running with/ Can you provide a paste of 'ipfw show'? Also,
what is in your natd.conf?
> -Original Message-
> From: Denis Lemire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 02:57 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: NAT/DIVERT Issues in 5.2.1 R
Your question is way to vague. You have to post your ipfw rules file
and the contents of rc.conf for people to review before anybody can
help you. First piece of advice is to not use the default firewall
rules as its way outdated and does more to confuse a person than
really work as an firewall rul
There is no issue I know of. FBSD-5.2.1-R-p9 works nicely as a NAT
gateway at my location. However the information you have provided is
too little for getting hold of the problem. We could try to figure
something out but we need some more informations, like how set it up,
firewall rules, etc.
Rega
"Hakim Z. Singhji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> So with the help of all of you I have configure my FreeBSD 4.10 gateway.
> I am able to ping, tracerout, ssh and call webpages with a fully
> functioning DHCP client. I thank all of you from the bottom of my heart,
> those of you that
"JJB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A new rewrite of the FreeBSD handbook firewall section is currently
> being made ready for update to the handbook. You can get an
> in-process copy from www.a1poweruser.com/FBSD_firewall/
>
> For more help post complete contents of your rc.conf, ppp.conf, ipfw
Add this statement to your ppp.conf file
enable dns
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Cleyton
Agapito
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 2:09 PM
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NAT trouble
Hi friends,
I using nat in my home dial
Hi friends,
I using nat in my home dial connection. The route is fine but my machine is
responding that the network is unrecheable for names, and if I put the DNS
adresses in resolv.conf it works. I did some like that a time ago in a linux
suite (that is getting the same problem after a upgrad
Change
natd_interface="tun0"
to
natd_interface="rl0"
Change
00050 0 0 divert 8668 ip from any to any via tun0
to
00050 0 0 divert 8668 ip from any to any via rl0
redirect rl0 tcp 192.168.0.2:15000 15000
A new rewrite of the FreeBSD handbook firewall section is currently
being ma
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Björn Lindström) wrote:
> Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> (Where tun0 is the interface of my ADSL connection.)
> >
> > Is tun0 the real interface?
>
> No, the actual card is rl0:
>
> rl0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
> inet6 fe80::2e0:4cff:feb0:5d5b%rl0 prefixlen
Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> (Where tun0 is the interface of my ADSL connection.)
>
> Is tun0 the real interface?
No, the actual card is rl0:
rl0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
inet6 fe80::2e0:4cff:feb0:5d5b%rl0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
ether 00:e0:4c:b0:5d:5b
media:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Björn Lindström) wrote:
> I'm having some trouble to get NAT working on the Internet gateway of my
> home LAN.
>
> Here's my setup:
>
> I have compiled a kernel with the following options added:
>
> options IPFIREWALL
> options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE
> options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE_L
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for replying.
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
To: To Stacey Roberts
Date: Sat, 12 Jun, 2004 20:11 BST
Subject: Re: NAT vs Public IP Range info needed, please
>
> On Jun 12, 2004, at 09:46, Stacey Roberts wrot
Hello Vince,
Thanks for the reply.
- Original Message -
From: "Vince Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
To: To Stacey Roberts
Date: Sat, 12 Jun, 2004 18:36 BST
Subject: Re: NAT vs Public IP Range info needed, please
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Stacey Ro
Hello Eric,
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Crist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
To: To 'Stacey Roberts'
Date: Sat, 12 Jun, 2004 18:23 BST
Subject: RE: NAT vs Public IP Range info needed, please
> > -Original Message-
> > Hello,
> > I am
On Jun 12, 2004, at 12:11, Kevin Stevens wrote:
As you see, the g'way's public ip is not being used for NAT'ing
internal hosts' outgoing traffic, but another ip from within the
assignied public ip address range. My reading of the NAT chapter does
not suggest that there is a way to define the pub
On Jun 12, 2004, at 09:46, Stacey Roberts wrote:
The ISP's DSL package includes 8 static ip addresses: -
1 - network addr
1 - broadcast addr
1 "router" address
5 usable ip addresses
The -redirect_address syntax is as follows:
-redirect_address localIP publicIP
localIP The internal IP addre
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Stacey Roberts wrote:
> Hello,
> I am looking to replace a proprietary DSL router/modem with the Sangoma S518
> ADSL PCI Controller, thereby placing a FreeBSD (4.10-Stable) server running ipfw to
> handle access, firewall and nat duties.
>
> The ISP's DSL package incl
> -Original Message-
> Hello,
> I am looking to replace a proprietary DSL router/modem
> with the Sangoma S518 ADSL PCI Controller, thereby placing a
> FreeBSD (4.10-Stable) server running ipfw to handle access,
> firewall and nat duties.
>
> The ISP's DSL package includes 8 static ip
To all that helped.. the NAT & Verizon PPPoE setup is working great.
Firewall rules are in.. and now working on squid.
Thank you all. I knew this list is great!
This is how things are setup:
/etc/rc.conf
defaultrouter=""
hostname="fw.somehost.com"
ppp_enable="YES"
ppp_mode="auto"
ppp_nat="YES"
Mohsin Rahman wrote:
Thank you. I will try tun0 as my nat interface. However, if lets say, the
modem drops the connection and the next attempt to access the internet,
wouldn't FreeBSD assign the new ip address to tun1 and basically render
tun0 nat useless? A better solution might be to let do ppp -
Mohsin Rahman wrote:
Thank you. I will try tun0 as my nat interface. However, if lets say, the
modem drops the connection and the next attempt to access the internet,
wouldn't FreeBSD assign the new ip address to tun1 and basically render
tun0 nat useless?
I hope someone will correct me if I'm w
Thank you. I will try tun0 as my nat interface. However, if lets say, the
modem drops the connection and the next attempt to access the internet,
wouldn't FreeBSD assign the new ip address to tun1 and basically render
tun0 nat useless? A better solution might be to let do ppp -nat perhaps. I
will t
Mohsin Rahman wrote:
My PPPoE works OK... I do get an IP and can get to internet from this
machine. The problem is I can get to the internet from this
machine ONLY, none my other machines can get to internet. How do I go
about fixing this?
Reading further in man natd, I see:
3. If you
JJB wrote:
Go back to using generic kernel.
There is no reason to compile anything to get your setup to
function
at your friend house using dsl.
Make these changes
In ppp.conf delete
papchap:
set authname {username}
set authkey {password}
in rc.conf
change this ifconfi
Go back to using generic kernel.
There is no reason to compile anything to get your setup to
function
at your friend house using dsl.
Make these changes
In ppp.conf delete
papchap:
set authname {username}
set authkey {password}
in rc.conf
change this ifconfig_fxp0
Hello Friend
First I agree with you the FBSD handbook documentation on firewall
software sucks big time. It leads the reader into believing that
ipfw is the only solution when it is not. FBSD is delivered with
ipfw and IPFILTER which are both firewall software applications. The
second thing that t
It depends on what you are using, ipf or ipfw?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Stanley Chan wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I am building my NAT and firewall using FreeBSD 4.9. Can anyone tell me
> how to configure the Address Redirection. which file should I use.The
> explanation on the handbook is not so clear.
>
hello,
add following to:
/etc/rc.conf
firewall_type="open"
firewall_enable="YES"
firewall_quiet="NO"
natd_enable="YES"
natd_flags="-f /etc/natd.conf"
natd_interface="rl0"
gateway_enable="YES"
/etc/natd.conf
--
use_sockets yes
Kernelkonfiguration
/usr/src
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 06:07:23PM +0200, Petre Bandac wrote:
> snack% /sbin/ifconfig
> rl0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
> inet 213.157.171.x netmask 0xff00 broadcast 213.157.171.255
> ether 00:02:44:30:dc:4b
> media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX )
> status: active
> rl1: flag
snack% /sbin/ifconfig
rl0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
inet 213.157.171.x netmask 0xff00 broadcast 213.157.171.255
ether 00:02:44:30:dc:4b
media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX )
status: active
rl1: flags=8843 mtu 1500
inet 213.157.185.x netmask 0xfff0 broadc
On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 02:35 AM, Alhagie Puye wrote:
Do you have a natd.conf file? What does your rc.conf
file look like? You have to turn on nat for the
packets to be translated. Telling the firewall to send
the packets to natd is one thing, what the happens to
them after that is another
Do you have a natd.conf file? What does your rc.conf
file look like? You have to turn on nat for the
packets to be translated. Telling the firewall to send
the packets to natd is one thing, what the happens to
them after that is another. You ARE missing the setup
for natd.
Check this out:
http://
"Justin P. Michel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am having a problem with NAT.
>
> I have my FreeBSD system, running 4.8, cvsup'd to p13. I have the following
> in my kernel configuration:
>
> options IPDIVERT
> options IPFIREWALL
> options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE
> options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE_LIMI
> Hi,
> From my casual observation your rc.conf has a spelling error in it, you
> have gatway_enable="yes" should of course be gateway_enable="yes". Sorry
> if you had picked it up earlier.
Doh! That fixed it. Thanks! I knew it had to be something simple like
that,
and I even quadruple checke
Hi,
From my casual observation your rc.conf has a spelling error in it, you
have gatway_enable="yes" should of course be gateway_enable="yes". Sorry
if you had picked it up earlier.
This is one of my favourites for setting up a router
http://lantech.geekvenue.net/chucktips/jason/chuck/1031194375
> Here are the docs i used when using ADSL w/ PPPoE and NAT w/ IPFW
> there are 2 writeups here ...first is PPPoE (im assuming you already know
> how to compile your kerel ?) 2nd is Duel Home host ...and how to setup
> NAT.
Hi Brent,
About the only differences I see in your config vs. mine is t
Here are the docs i used when using ADSL w/ PPPoE and NAT w/ IPFW
there are 2 writeups here ...first is PPPoE (im assuming you already know
how to compile your kerel ?) 2nd is Duel Home host ...and how to setup
NAT.
hope this helps
--
Brent Bailey CCNA
Bmyster LLC
Computer Networking and Webho
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 06:16:34PM -0700, Sean Noonan wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I've used NAT with FreeBSD for years now, but recently had to change my
> ISP. My new ISP, SBC, uses PPPoE (yuck). I've finally got PPPoE working,
> but am having a heck of a time getting NAT to work with it. I'm track
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 08:55:01PM +0100, Wayne Pascoe wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've got ipfw working and logging without recompiling my kernel. I've
> now hit my next problem...
>
> Is it possible to use NAT without recompiling ? I've kldloaded the\
No.
Bob Hall
___
> In the last episode (Jul 08), Brent Wiese said:
> > I have a machine that is being double-NAT'd.
> >
> > Would it make sense to set the MTU lower to account for the NAT
> > overhead?
> >
> > It makes sense to me as I know MTU, but I like to check in case my
> > thinking isn't right. :)
>
> T
In the last episode (Jul 08), Brent Wiese said:
> I have a machine that is being double-NAT'd.
>
> Would it make sense to set the MTU lower to account for the NAT
> overhead?
>
> It makes sense to me as I know MTU, but I like to check in case my
> thinking isn't right. :)
There is no overhead; a
> -Original Message-
> From: Brent Wiese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 8:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: NAT and MTU
>
>
> I have a machine that is being double-NAT'd.
>
> Would it make sense to set the MTU lower to account for the
> NAT overhead?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jeremy Bingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 4:16 PM
> Subject: Re: NAT Dropping Internal Connection
>
> On 25/06/03 14:39 -0400, FBSD_User wrote:
> > Sounds like hardw
my Bingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: NAT Dropping Internal Connection
On 25/06/03 14:39 -0400, FBSD_User wrote:
> Sounds like hardware problem with the switch or hub on your LAN.
Rebooting the machine makes the N
On 25/06/03 14:39 -0400, FBSD_User wrote:
> Sounds like hardware problem with the switch or hub on your LAN.
Rebooting the machine makes the NAT stuff work again. Could the hub
still be a problem in that case?
-j
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
On 25/06/03 13:34 -0500, Gene Bomgardner wrote:
>
> Check IP addresses. Do you use dhcp? Is the f-bsd box the server? I've had
> this problem when dhcpd stopped and the windoze machines assigned their own
> ip's
I have to use dhcp on the external interface, but the internal
interfaces use static
[Please wrap your lines around 70 chars or so]
Koroush Saraf wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to setup a BSD box to act as a NAT gateway between private
> net and public Internet. My requirements is to map the src and destination
> of the packet according to a set of rules.
The BSD box has two pu
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 09:15:35PM -0700, David Bear (DB) wrote:
DB> Does anyone know how many NAT clients can be effectively served by a
DB> FBSD NAT box? I know a lot will be determined by RAM, but I'm looking
DB> for guidelines and experience.
The largest numbers I've had working was a P2-450
> I am in the process of configuring NAT and a firewall on FreeBSD 4.7
> Stable. I have configured the external interface with 2 class C addresses
> 192.x.x.1 and 192.x.x.2. and the internal interface with 192.168.x.1 (
> gateway )
> I have also configured natd_flags="-redirect_address 192.168.x.3
Thanks again for the help. Unfortunately this doesn't
seem to have worked either. I've entered:
ifconfig fxp0 alias x.x.x.x
This simply replaces the existing fxp0 settings from
rc.conf with the alias settings (resulting in a loss
of network connectivity. I've removed the original
alias0 - alia
- Original Message -
From: "Flemming Frøkjær" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Alvaro Rosales R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: NAT + IPFW question
> Alvaro Rosales R. wrote:
> >
Alvaro Rosales R. wrote:
> Hi fellows I have setup natd in my freeBSD BOX (using firewall =OPEN)
> and it is working fine.
> Now I want to close my firewall so that the only computer that is using
> NATD would the the only one that could accept connections from the
> internet.But when I try to t
- Original Message -
From: "Drew Tomlinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Alvaro Rosales R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: NAT + IPFW question
> - Original Message -
> From:
- Original Message -
From: "Alvaro Rosales R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 2:42 PM
Subject: NAT + IPFW question
> Hi fellows I have setup natd in my freeBSD BOX (using firewall =OPEN)
> and it is working fine.
> Now I want to close my firewa
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
