From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Jan 30 10:35: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.79.126]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2F5151BD for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 10:34:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@yogotech.com) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.79.115]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10892; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:34:49 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA13968; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:34:48 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:34:48 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200001301834.LAA13968@nomad.yogotech.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: William Woods Cc: Coleman Kane , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Doug White Subject: Re: FW: DSL natd rules.... In-Reply-To: References: <20000130012354.A86581@evil.2y.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Well, > USWEST says the 675 needs to be in PPP mode and not bridged. I have the 675's > manuals and have been reading them. LIke I said, I have NAT from the 675 to the > router/gateway (Not running a server) and on the gateway/router I am useing > ipfw and natd to the internal LAN. > > Is this not a viable solution? > > On 30-Jan-00 Coleman Kane wrote: > > Doug White had the audacity to say: > >> On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, William Woods wrote: > >> > >> > Hmmm.... > >> > > >> > Well I was planning on running NAT from the cisco to the FreeBSD > >> > router/gateway/firewall and then NATD on the router gateway to deliver to > >> > the > >> > rest of the LAN. This is a bad thing I take it? Let me jump in and state that this is what I did (exact same setup, U.S. West, 675, FreeBSD), and it worked great. However, I switched to a different ISP since they allowed me to have my own block of addresses for a much cheaper price than what U.S. West charged, plus they have a more 'stable' network connection. The original configuration worked well, and I don't think you would notice any problems using the double-NAT configuration whatsoever, although you could simply hook all your boxs directly to the Cisco and use it that way instead, which may be easier for you. The NAT implementation on the cisco seemed to work quite well... Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message