Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 01:22:14 +0000 From: Philip Reynolds <philip.reynolds@rfc-networks.ie> To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "ipfw fwd" not working without static route? Message-ID: <20020804012214.B1711@rfc-networks.ie> In-Reply-To: <web-45259@novaconnect.net>; from mailing@novaconnect.net on Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 09:53:28AM -0400 References: <20020801231035.B31318@rfc-networks.ie> <web-45259@novaconnect.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matt Abraham <mailing@novaconnect.net> 87 lines of wisdom included: > I think in my case, a better scenario would be that I still > want to have the meeting point in building A for everyone > EXCEPT those from say, the Purchasing department; those > indiviuals should go over to building B. OK, however there is currently no route from A to B, so noone can get through. > Now the use of static routes become problematic because the > route now only applies to packets that match a certain > criteria, namely having a source address of 172.17.1.5. If I > modify the netmasks on the box (and not use ipfw fwd), I > change the behaviour for all packets coming through...not > what I want to do. I still think you can do what do you want to do by using subnetting your network properly. Crist did suggest an alternative with a ``dummy'' route. Perhaps more details (including interfaces, IP addresses, network addresses, subnets etc.) would allow us to look at the actual design of the network (which is where I feel the flaw is). -- Philip Reynolds | Technical Director philip.reynolds@rfc-networks.ie | RFC Networks Ltd. http://www.rfc-networks.ie | +353 (0)1 8832063 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020804012214.B1711>