Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:21:04 +1200 From: "Dan Langille" <junkmale@xtra.co.nz> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: ipfw and natd Message-ID: <199808112321.LAA17116@cyclops.xtra.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.980811155955.29188C-100000@current1.whistle.com> References: <199808112247.KAA07516@cyclops.xtra.co.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
OK. This may explain some problems I'm having. Accoding the to ipfw man pages, the rule: divert natd ip from any to any via ed0 will divert packets that match this rule to the divert(4) socket bound to port natd. The search then terminates. I don't understand what this means and reading the divert man pages doesn't help me. Perhaps this is best covered by another thread. However, reading the divert man pages I find that "it is normally best to specify your divert rules prior to any others". So I'll take that advice. On 11 Aug 98, at 16:02, Julian Elischer wrote: > the difference is what happens to packets after translation.... > > > under 2.2.5 they are restarted after translation at teh beginning of the > filter again, but skipping the translation the second time through. > > under 3.0 they re-enter the filter directly after the translation entry. > (where they left off) > > if the translation entry is at the start, then the two cases are > equivalent.. :-) > > (there is a kernel option in 2.2.7 to make it use the 3.0 semantics) > > julian > > > > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Dan Langille wrote: > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > I take it that it does not make a difference under 2.2.5 or later? If > > it does, what difference? What difference will it make under 3.0? > > > > On 11 Aug 98, at 15:38, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > it should be as early as possible.. > > > this will make a difference to the way it works in 3.0 > > > > > > julian > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Dan Langille wrote: > > > > > > > I'm using ifpw and natd. In order for natd to work, the following > > > > rule must be present somewhere within the ipfw rules. > > > > > > > > divert natd ip from any to any via ed0 > > > > > > > > (or whatever your external nic is if it's not ed0). > > > > > > > > Where should that rule be placed in relationship to other rules? At > > > > the top, at the bottom? > > > > > > > > I used to have it as the last rule (before the deny all rule). But > > > > an example I just found > > > > (http://www.metronet.com/~pgilley/freebsd/ipfw/ben2.html) has this > > > > rule at the top. > > > > > > > > I'm confused. I thought you'd want to disallow stuff before > > > > allowing the natd stuff. Or am I mucked up? -- Dan Langille DVL Software Limited http://www.dvl-software.com/freebsd : my [mis]adventures To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808112321.LAA17116>