Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:25:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Jamie Bowden <jamie@itribe.net> To: Ben Black <black@zen.cypher.net> Cc: "J. Weatherbee - Chief Systems Engineer" <root@acromail.ml.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Stupid Routing Situation Message-ID: <199709121317.JAA17362@gatekeeper.itribe.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970912001813.12812B-100000@zen.cypher.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Or upgrade your ascend to 5.0b (not beta, just ascend's screwed up numbering scheme). It will do NAT, and this all becomes immaterial. On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Ben Black wrote: > number the link between the pipeline and the firewall using rfc 1918 > addresses. as an intermediate hop, they don't need to be advertised. > the ascend accepts traffic for your routable network and passes traffic > over to the firewall. > > On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, J. Weatherbee - Chief Systems Engineer wrote: > > > > > > > I have a ascend pipeline 50 w/o firewall connected by a crossover cable to > > a freebsd machine the rest of the network is connected to a second > > ethernet interface. I want to firewall the machines on the second > > interface. This would be easy if I two networks, but I dont have enough > > IP's for that. It is kind of like I just want the machine to act as a > > bridge but I also want that bridge to be firewalled. Any suggestions, > > something I am missing. I have done this before with two ethernet segments > > but like I said these aren't 192.168 addresses and I don't have enough for > > two networks. > > > > > > > > > Jamie Bowden System Administrator, iTRiBE.net Abusenet: The Misinformation Superhighway
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709121317.JAA17362>