Hello,
I have reported bug 209491 (Broadcast storm with ipfw+natd+gateway)
for -CURRENT, but now it is also in 11-STABLE. It is still here, as
I have tested it today with src r305790 (11.0-PRERELEASE).
So please be warned. If you are using similar configuration as me
with ipfw+natd+gateway, you
SOLVED: Thanks all for your assistance.
SUMMARY:
- Kernel rebuilt with option IPFIREWALL and friends turned on (not
necessary if your ipfw modules work you should just be able to load
them, mine didn't for reasons I don't really have the time or
inclination to track down)
- OpenVPN configuration
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Morgan Reed wrote:
> Works like a charm, just one last thing I'd like to get squared away
> here though, currently OpenVPN is using a dynamically created tun
> device, I'd like to have a static /dev/tun0 exist prior to the
> /etc/rc.d/natd st
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Morgan Reed wrote:
>> And with ipfw nat you won't be needing ipdivert. Again, no harm.
>
> Yeah, I didn't think it should be necessary but something was trying
> to load it from within the jails and throwing an error, probably the
> n
thing was trying
to load it from within the jails and throwing an error, probably the
natd startup script, not sure why, I might do some digging if I get
bored at some point.
> If the address of the tunX interface is fixed in the jail, you can
> specify it by IP instead of the interface i
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:44:30 +1100, Morgan Reed wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Morgan Reed wrote:
> > So it turns out I'd not bought bpf into the jails, however even with
> > that and raw_sockets enabled I'm still having no joy with natd.
> >
>
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Morgan Reed wrote:
> So it turns out I'd not bought bpf into the jails, however even with
> that and raw_sockets enabled I'm still having no joy with natd.
>
> I've been looking at ipfw a bit today but I've run into an issue,
> l
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
> Why not just load the module?
Yeah, you got beaten to the punch on that one offlist, it's late in
the day here ;)
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/list
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Morgan Reed wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Morgan Reed
> wrote:
> > So it turns out I'd not bought bpf into the jails, however even with
> > that and raw_sockets enabled I'm still having no joy with natd.
> >
> &g
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Morgan Reed wrote:
> So it turns out I'd not bought bpf into the jails, however even with
> that and raw_sockets enabled I'm still having no joy with natd.
>
> I've been looking at ipfw a bit today but I've run into an issue,
> l
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Morgan Reed wrote:
> BPF is enabled for the jails, and the traffic is getting to where it
> needs to (but not via natd). I'll try enabling raw_sockets in the
> jails, it is entirely conceivable that natd requires that
> functionality.
So it
On 11/22/2012 6:00 AM, Morgan Reed wrote:
Hi All,
Hi,
[snipped content]
Any suggestions here?
A quick one. Could you make a try using "ipfw nat" instead of natd?
I am not sure about divert socket and natd per jail, but NATing using
ipfw and libalias(which natd uses as well) w
an issue of the appropriate interfaces not being
exposed to natd from the epair/bridge setup that might be an alternate
solution, not hugely concerned about scale, it'll pretty much only be
my traffic that gets routed this way, but I am interested in making it
as efficient as possible (no sense
Hmm, list was missing from reply-to on this one.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Morgan Reed
Date: Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: natd in a jail
To: Dewayne Geraghty
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Dewayne Geraghty
wrote:
> We run a lot of jails with kernel
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Simon Dick wrote:
> I've not used it myself, but this sound like something VIMAGE may be good
> for, basically it's a virtual tcp stack per jail, there's some docs at
> http://wiki.freebsd.org/Image but I seem to remember a more up to date one
> elsewhere but can't
On Nov 22, 2012, at 2:43 AM, wrote:
>> I've not used it myself, but this sound like something VIMAGE may be good
>> for, basically it's a virtual tcp stack per jail, there's some docs at
>> http://wiki.freebsd.org/Image but I seem to remember a more up to date one
>> elsewhere but can't find it
> I've not used it myself, but this sound like something VIMAGE may be good
> for, basically it's a virtual tcp stack per jail, there's some docs at
> http://wiki.freebsd.org/Image but I seem to remember a more up to date one
> elsewhere but can't find it at the moment!
AFAIK, VIMAGE is still expe
ard route over the VPN tunnel as I don't
> control the other end of the tunnel, I need to treat it as a
> point-to-point connection as a result, hence I need to use NAT.
>
> I've tested this setup with a single tunnel running off a "real"
> machine with natd provi
o-point connection as a result, hence I need to use NAT.
I've tested this setup with a single tunnel running off a "real"
machine with natd providing NAT, it works like a charm, however, when
I move the config into a jail I run into issues, natd doesn't seem to
be able to see
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:25:54PM -0600, Bob Willcox wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 08:24:54PM +0300, hizel wrote:
> > Hi. Similar problem. Now updated to 7.3-PRERELEASE. rc script natd said he
> > did not know parameter quietstart. Now migrate to use kernel nat.
>
>
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 08:24:54PM +0300, hizel wrote:
> Hi. Similar problem. Now updated to 7.3-PRERELEASE. rc script natd said he
> did not know parameter quietstart. Now migrate to use kernel nat.
I was able to confirm that simply changing "quietstart" and "quietstop&q
Hi. Similar problem. Now updated to 7.3-PRERELEASE. rc script natd said he did
not know parameter quietstart. Now migrate to use kernel nat.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To
I just updated my gateway machine to 7.3-PRERELEASE and immediately noticed
that natd no longer started (hard to miss, no outside network access).
It looks like the MFC of the firewall_coscripts function may be the cause
(cvs rev 1.15.2.3 to /usr/src/etc/rc.d/ipfw). These changes add the two
1:04 -0800, Jonathan Feally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry to cross post, but the net list didn't help a couple weeks back on
this.
names, natd, and dhcpd have all been getting stuck in zoneli (zone
limit) since I upgraded to the box to stable about a month ago. It was
running a 6.1-S
Hi,
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:41:04 -0800, Jonathan Feally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry to cross post, but the net list didn't help a couple weeks back on
> this.
>
> names, natd, and dhcpd have all been getting stuck in zoneli (zone
> limit) since I upgraded to
Sorry to cross post, but the net list didn't help a couple weeks back on
this.
names, natd, and dhcpd have all been getting stuck in zoneli (zone
limit) since I upgraded to the box to stable about a month ago. It was
running a 6.1-STABLE before with out difficulty. Very little has change
Hi!
I'm a junior in FreeBSD, and I faced with problem.
I've a FreeBSD 6.1-stable box as a gate+firewall, and I want to divert
incoming requests to my web-server, placed in DeMilitarized Zone
(DMZ). To do this I wrote down settings in /etc/rc.conf as shown
above:
natd_flags="-redirect_port
Spoke too soon; figured it out not a minute later. It seems to work
if I remove the divert rule for my server (10.0.0.2) from ipfw, and
leave the natd parameter.
SigmaX
On 8/20/06, SigmaX asdf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've setup a firewall box with IPFW and NATD with what the h
I've setup a firewall box with IPFW and NATD with what the handbook
had to offer on the subject, and now would like to get traffic
forwarded to behind my shmancy new firewall.
Google is purely confusing me on this one. From what I understand I
need to do one or more of the following:
se
Hi,
Would please the maintainer or a core member check the natd.c source for
the processing and correct defaults of natds' -same_ports option?
I took a look at natd.c and the same_ports seems to be defined in
source, it sets libalias options PKT_ALIAS_SAME_PORTS, nothing
else. It relies o
Hi folks!
Running natd under 5.3-RELEASE I've seen natd doesn't touch the port
numbers - natd let packets pass with the same port numbers.
I've tried setting the -same_ports natd option to no but natd behaviour
doesn't change. From what I've found in the natd sources
(
Hi everybody!
I'm with FreeBSD 5.3 and i want to share my Internet connection with one
more PC not with entire LAN. I have IP 10.0.54.128. The LAN has
10.0.54.0\24. I want to share on one PC with IP 10.0.54.8
My connection to Internet is via pptp:
saiman# ifconfig tun0
tun0: flags=8051 mtu 150
On 5/26/2004, "Volker Stolz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In local.freebsd-stable, you wrote:
>> I am having troubles with NATD.
>> I have 64 Real IP addresses and about a 200 customers. I need to define
>> an address pool in order to avoid the effect that a
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Evgeny Ivanov wrote:
in rc.conf:
natd_enable="YES"
natd_flags="-f /etc/natd.conf"
You also need:
gateway_enable="YES"
firewall_enable="YES"
Also make sure you're not doing anything silly in ipfw. Use a stock
/etc/rc.firewall and set firewall_type="OPEN" in rc.conf to make rea
Aha! I'll give that a go.
Thank you.
-E-
Matthew Seaman wrote:
If I have a single IP, will nat with FreeBSD 4.9 allow me to separate
requests by domain name even if they share an IP?
NAT works with IP addresses. Why can't you just use Virtual Hosts in
Apache? Do you really need to run both ve
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 11:15:10AM -0800, Eli K. Breen wrote:
>
> Janet Sullivan wrote:
> > > I'm trying to host a few services under a few different domain names and
> > > need to be running multiple webservers to do it (apache 1.3x and 2.x).
> > >
> > > If I have a single IP, will nat with FreeB
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 11:15:10AM -0800, Eli K. Breen wrote:
> >
> >NAT works with IP addresses. Why can't you just use Virtual Hosts in
> >Apache? Do you really need to run both versions?
>
> Yes. Unfortunately. (Slash does not run on 2.x, many of the sites
> require 2.x)
>
> I am already
Janet Sullivan wrote:
> I'm trying to host a few services under a few different domain names and
> need to be running multiple webservers to do it (apache 1.3x and 2.x).
>
> If I have a single IP, will nat with FreeBSD 4.9 allow me to separate
> requests by domain name even if they share an IP
> I'm trying to host a few services under a few different domain names and
> need to be running multiple webservers to do it (apache 1.3x and 2.x).
>
> If I have a single IP, will nat with FreeBSD 4.9 allow me to separate
> requests by domain name even if they share an IP?
NAT works with IP address
I'm not ready to push the big red button yet, but I definitely had a
problem with natd tonight on my -stable firewall box. I've had ipfw and
natd running on this box for years... so I'm sure it's not my
configuration. My last set of sources was from november 10. I did recentl
Hi everybody,
my local machine (AMD XP 1500+) recently had a kernel panic (last
Friday). The panic message was saying something about "natd" being the
active task. After having read about kernel panics with early 4.7-STABLE
here I decided to cvsup and update. That didn't help to
On Monday 09 September 2002 03:14, Jamie Heckford wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I seem to be having a rather odd problem with IPFW + NATD.
>
> I have added rules to allow a certain IP address access to port 80 which is
> redirected to an internal host.
>
> Now, this doesn't work
On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 19:47, Tomasz Paszkowski wrote:
> I'am running a preety big network (about 2k users) with a private addresses.
> I've been using natd + ipfw for ages and I really like it. But I've run into
> performance problems. Machine with PIV 1.7Ghz can't af
es that either (or
> both) of natd_flags and natd_interface have non-empty values. If so, it
> starts natd. If natd_enable is Yes and both flags and interface are empty,
> it whines and doesn't start natd.
>
> The only downside I can see to this change is that people who curr
>> I ran into exactly this same situation a couple weeks ago, and was outraged
>> by the fact that 1) fxp0 was hard-coded in a defaults file, and 2) the rc
>> files won't start natd without the interface being specified on the command
>> line.
>>
> Well,
frica
On Mon 2002-01-21 (11:48), Robert D. Hughes wrote:
>
> CVSUP from 1/16, running natd with command /sbin/natd -config /etc/natd.conf -n dc0.
>Config file is:
>
> log_denied
> log_facility security
> use_sockets
> same_ports
> unregistered_only
> redi
Services
On 23 Dec 2001, Roger Savard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since this morning I noticed that natd conflicts with the ipfw rules.
> My userland is in sync with the kernel but I had to fall back to
> (kernel.old) my last kernel.
>
> Content in /etc/rc.conf
> firewall_enable=&quo
On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, Ceri wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 01:30:11PM -0500, Roger Savard wrote:
> >
> > Since this morning I noticed that natd conflicts with the ipfw rules.
> > My userland is in sync with the kernel but I had to fall back to
> > (kernel.old) my last
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 01:30:11PM -0500, Roger Savard wrote:
>
> Since this morning I noticed that natd conflicts with the ipfw rules.
> My userland is in sync with the kernel but I had to fall back to
> (kernel.old) my last kernel.
>
> Anyone else noticed that?
Not me. M
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 11:57:26AM -0700, James Satterfield wrote:
> I've got a laptop running as my wireless gateway / firewall.
> It's got a PII 333MHz processor and 128MB ram
> I've only been able to pump about 4MBit/sec through it before natd is
> consuming nearl
I've got a laptop running as my wireless gateway / firewall.
It's got a PII 333MHz processor and 128MB ram
I've only been able to pump about 4MBit/sec through it before natd is
consuming nearly 100% of the cpu.
Are these results what I should be expecting?
James.
To Unsubscrib
Forgot to mention that it's currently running 4.3-RELEASE
Finished up a buildworld for -stable last night, but haven't completed the
upgrade process yet.
I haven't heard anything in the forums about changes to either the wi driver
or natd, so I don't think I'll see
I'm running an essentially open ruleset.
James.
-Original Message-
From: mikea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:06 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: natd performance.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 11:57:26AM -0700, James Satterfield wrot
ried proxy rules in the first place
was, per the man page, 'Outgoing TCP packets with the given port going
through this host to any other host are redirected...' I'm wanting to get
_incoming_ ports to ${oip}:8080 to ${iip}:80.
>From what I've found online and read in the man
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Mike Hoskins wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
>
> > My new 'firewall' manual page has an ipfw example of a natd setup.
> > It might help. You need a relatively recent -stable to have the
> > man page.
>
>
ajordomo?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-stable>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-stable>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
It looks like my natd is slowing down my cable internet transfers.
When running, I can't get the sp
]
- Original Message -
From: "Normand Leclerc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 8:14 AM
Subject: natd blues
> It looks like my natd is slowing down my cable internet transfers.
> When running, I can't get the s
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 09:14:36AM -0400, Normand Leclerc wrote:
> It looks like my natd is slowing down my cable internet transfers.
> When running, I can't get the speed I get when natd isn't around (tested
> downloading 20 megs with natd diverting packets fr
It looks like my natd is slowing down my cable internet transfers.
When running, I can't get the speed I get when natd isn't around (tested
downloading 20 megs with natd diverting packets from gateway and then
tested with an extra ipfw pass all rule before divert). With diver
hello stable,
i just started using natd
from 4.3-RC, and undestand that this had been discussed lately, but i still
don't find conclusion. using natd in verbose, i find these:
In [UDP] [UDP]
203.106.241.176:138 -> 203.106.241.255:138 aliased
to [UDP]
203.106.241
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 12:07:34PM +0200, Marko Cuk wrote:
>
> I have also 84 ipfw rules for firewall ( most of them reset and deny and
> a few dummynet pipes ).
> Is the processor too slow for that ?
Depending on the order of these rules: possibly.
--
Bill Fumerola - security yahoo /
Hello !!
I have problems with high load on FBSD box. First I had the 4.2 STABLE ,
then I cvsuped to 4.3-RC. Same thing.
When high traffic occurs on 100mbit hub, to wich is fxp0 connected, load
and processor usage on natd process is very high and after a while it
won't pass packets anymo
Hello !!
I have problems with high load on FBSD box. First I had the 4.2 STABLE ,
then I cvsuped to 4.3-RC. Same thing.
When high traffic occurs on 100mbit hub, to wich is fxp0 connected, load
and processor usage on natd process is very high and after a while it
won't pass packets anymo
nday, January 28, 2001 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: ipnat vs natd and ipf vs ipfw (fwd)
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 19:20 -0500, Espen Oyslebo wrote:
> >
> > Ipfw and ipf to my eye (without glasses that is) seem to do
> > pretty much the same thing. The same is true for ipnat and
> &
> Ipfw and ipf to my eye (without glasses that is) seem to do pretty much the same
> thing. The same is true for ipnat and natd. Of course there are differences
> between the two (ritgh?).
How do you map with a single rule a pool of private addresses into a pool of
real addresses
Just a wild guess... Perhaps the ipfw is blocking the traffic?
Please post your ipfw rules.
On Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Box1 wrote:
> FreeBSD-4.1.1-Stable
> Box-A= gateway
> Box-B= Apache, ircd, etc... servers
>
> I'm not able to redirect *only* http/https incoming-packets on my outside
> interface to
On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 10:23:22PM -0500, Box1 wrote:
> FreeBSD-4.1.1-Stable
> Box-A= gateway
> Box-B= Apache, ircd, etc... servers
>
> I'm not able to redirect *only* http/https incoming-packets on my outside
> interface to a box on my local network. Below if from my /etc/rc.conf and
> /etc/nat
Suggestion for the next release:
Change the NATD startup line in /etc/rc.network from "/sbin/natd
-interface ed0" to rather take the natd interface from
the /etc/rc.conf file instead of hardcoding it to ed0.
--
Kind Regards,
Wim Olivier
Principal Consultant - UNIX Systems
Professiona
"Crist J . Clark" wrote:
>
>
> Details please? The natd(8) process is not actually started from
> rc.firewall, but from rc.network. In which of these is the supposed
> breakage? Or do you mean the divert(4) rule in rc.firewall is not
> being added properly?
That
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Andreas Ntaflos wrote:
> thanks, but i have gateway_enable="YES" set.
> i also have the sysctl -w net.inet.ip.forwarding=1 command set in rc.conf,
> but that doesnt seem to impress my machine at all.
>
> maybe this is a problem with the current version of 4.1?
>
Genericall
rote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:54:22AM +0200, Andreas Ntaflos wrote:
> > Yo, I am having problems in getting ipfw with natd to work on this my
> > fbsd 4.1 RC machine. according to the natd manpage, its just about 4
> > lines that are needed to run natd and 'masq' a
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:54:22AM +0200, Andreas Ntaflos wrote:
> Yo, I am having problems in getting ipfw with natd to work on this my
> fbsd 4.1 RC machine. according to the natd manpage, its just about 4
> lines that are needed to run natd and 'masq' a subnet or a single o
Yo, I am having problems in getting ipfw with natd to work on this my
fbsd 4.1 RC machine. according to the natd manpage, its just about 4
lines that are needed to run natd and 'masq' a subnet or a single other
machine from the internet. i got two interfaces, one xl0 which is
connec
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Antony Russell wrote:
> Using the -v option to natd I have discovered that the connection is setup
> correctly using UDP. Thereafter the VPN client tries to communicate with the
> VPN software with protocol 50 which is defined as ESP (Encapsulating
> Security Pay
ce (eg www.FreeBSD.org ;) to 192.168.0.0/24. It should only block packets
> from that network incoming on the external interface. I understood natd would
> alter the dest addr on the inbound packet if it was in the table but not touch
> the source addr. Is this not the case? Or am I mis
g www.FreeBSD.org ;) to 192.168.0.0/24. It should only block packets
from that network incoming on the external interface. I understood natd would
alter the dest addr on the inbound packet if it was in the table but not touch
the source addr. Is this not the case? Or am I missing something
I've just finished setting up FreeBSD 4.0R with ipfw and natd and I've noticed
either a discrepency between the actual functionality and the man page or a
misunderstanding on my part.
The man page recommends putting the divert rule as close to the beginning
of the rule set as pos
On Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 06:46:38PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hello..
>
> After I upgraded another server of ours, which does natd between two
> NIC's, trying to activate it yields:
>
> root@fw :/tmp# ipfw add 50 divert natd all from any to any via xl1
>
Hello..
After I upgraded another server of ours, which does natd between two
NIC's, trying to activate it yields:
root@fw :/tmp# ipfw add 50 divert natd all from any to any via xl1
00050 divert 8668 ip from any to any via xl1
ipfw: setsockopt(IP_FW_ADD): Invalid argument
What is
> Now, the fakenet between your box and the cisco ... your provider is
> running ppp/router mode?
OK, well the provider is USWEST and they are ip PPP mode, that is correct
--
E-Mail: William Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 26-Jan-00
Time: 20:34:58
This message
You probably need to fill out /etc/resolv.conf on the FreeBSD box,
so it knows where to find the nameserver you want to use. Maybe
some entries in /etc/hosts would help too.
But, for what you're doing you really don't need the kernel
firewall stuff or natd. ppp -alias or ppp -nat (
As I recall, Joe Gleason wrote:
> That will be a tricky one, because PC anywhere uses some UDP packets to
> establish the connection as well as the TCP connection. As far as the natd
> setup, all I can say is man natd.
>
> Joe Gleason
> Tasam
>
> - Original Messag
On 24-Sep-99 Joe Gleason wrote:
() That will be a tricky one, because PC anywhere uses some UDP packets to
() establish the connection as well as the TCP connection. As far as the
() natd setup, all I can say is man natd.
You can configure natd in two ways: to redirect defined UDP and TCP
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Ed Shoro wrote:
> >%_I'm currently using natd to route my lan to the internet. I am using one
>registered ip address. Is there a way to port map to one of the computers behind the
>freebsd router? The coumputer will be running win 98 and I would like to use
That will be a tricky one, because PC anywhere uses some UDP packets to
establish the connection as well as the TCP connection. As far as the natd
setup, all I can say is man natd.
Joe Gleason
Tasam
- Original Message -
From: Ed Shoro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECT
I'm currently using natd to route my lan to the internet. I am
using one registered ip address. Is there a way to port map to one of the
computers behind the freebsd router? The coumputer will be running win 98 and I
would like to use PC Anywhere or something like that.
Thanks
Ed
e
: more likely to find a better answer there.
> Hi guys. I have been using 3.2-Release for quite some time now as a
> natd. Normally I have no problems with this setup at all. However, I just
> realized, after perusing my logs, I have been getting this error.
>
> Jul 18
Hi guys. I have been using 3.2-Release for quite some time now as a
natd. Normally I have no problems with this setup at all. However, I just
realized, after perusing my logs, I have been getting this error.
Jul 18 17:58:41 daemon natd[107]: failed to write packet back (Host is down
I am trying to get a VPN to a Machine on my local network from
another outside machine. When I type the following:
natd -pptpalias 192.168.2.7
Here is the response I get:
natd: unknown option pptpalias
Did I miss something.. It is there in the man page. The box
89 matches
Mail list logo
