Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:57:49 -0700
From:      Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
To:        jaime@snowmoon.com
Cc:        freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: ipfw fwd and bridging
Message-ID:  <20020627115749.B50351@iguana.icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <20020627144549.X7490-100000@malkav.snowmoon.com>; from jaime@snowmoon.com on Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 02:46:52PM -0400
References:  <20020627104301.A50086@iguana.icir.org> <20020627144549.X7490-100000@malkav.snowmoon.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 02:46:52PM -0400, jaime@snowmoon.com wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 01:12:01PM -0400, Jaime wrote:
> > > any to any 80" to work the way that I expected.  The man page seems to
> > > indicate that fwd and bridge are incompatible.  Is this true?
> >
> > yes.
> 
> 	How about divert and bridge?  I saw no mention of bridge in the

incompatible as well. The new firewall code enforces this better
(it will also make it easier to implement divert or forward or
nat or tunneling of layer2 or layer3 packets, but none of this is
implemented now).

> divert manpage.  Will an ipfw divert rule, a natd process, and bridging
> work together on the same box?

well, this is a different story. You _can_ have these things
work together, but you have to write the rules in the right way.

	cheers
	luigi

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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020627115749.B50351>