Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:27:31 -0500 (EST) From: "C J Michaels" <cjm2@earthling.net> To: <user@mail.econolodgetulsa.com> Cc: <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: port redirect with ipfw NOT NAT (not NAT) Message-ID: <1863.216.153.202.219.1039454851.squirrel@www.27in.tv> In-Reply-To: <44znrga9lj.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> References: <20021208010714.J77087-100000@mail.econolodgetulsa.com> <44znrga9lj.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Some time in the recent past Lowell Gilbert scribbled: > Josh Brooks <user@mail.econolodgetulsa.com> writes: > >> > Have you tried something like: >> > >> > add 01000 fwd 10.10.10.10,5050 tcp from any to 10.10.10.10 50 >> >> >> When I do this, I get: >> >> ipfw: getsockopt(IP_FW_ADD): Invalid argumentipfw: >> getsockopt(IP_FW_ADD): Invalid argument >> >> >> Any ideas ? Is there any reason why port forwarding with ipfw is >> special and annoying ? Or is there really something qualitatively >> different about this action that warrants this behavior ? I don't see anything wrong with your syntax on that command and I use a similar command to foward to my transparent proxy. The only thing *I* can think of is that you didn't compile your kernel with: options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD -- Chris 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?1863.216.153.202.219.1039454851.squirrel>