Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:41:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Shaun <scopplestone@wiznet.ca> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NATD question Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910061039000.8080-100000@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <000c01bf1019$258fc870$153952d1@ntwkstn.wiznet.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Shaun wrote: > Question.... > > I am trying to use NATD to route a subnet of 8 IP addresses using > redirect_address. It works going in but when coming out NATD uses port > translation on the IP address assigned to the NAT box. > > For example: > > The NAT box has a IP address of (say) 192.168.0.10 outside interface, > inside interface 10.1.1.1 > a subnet of 192.168.200.216 -> 223 is routed to the above ip address by > static routes > > I have created a natd.conf file containing all the direct translations > using redirect_address. > I can telnet into say 192.168.200.217 and get redirected correctly to > 10.1.1.217, but when 10.1.1.217 telnets out, its address is shown as > 192.168.0.10 instead of 192.168.200.217. Which tells me that port > translation is working instead of nat. > > Does NATD work with subnets or only full /24's? I currently have this > working on another NAT box using a class C. I'm unsure what you mean, you're giving examples with reserved IP blocks but yet I get the impression that you want these IPs to be able to get past natd unmolested, (that you really are not using reserved IPs) I think the simplest way to accomplish this would be to add the -unregistered_only flag to natd, or insert an ipfw rule before your divert rule giving free access to machines coming from your internal interface. -Alfred 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?Pine.BSF.4.05.9910061039000.8080-100000>