From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 27 00:10:53 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D5E37B404 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from adicia.telenet-ops.be (adicia.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.56]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1661943F3F for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:10:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rimshot@pandora.be) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by adicia.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with SMTP id 6FEE637E8B; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:10:50 +0200 (MEST) Received: from positron.hjc.be (D5762020.kabel.telenet.be [213.118.32.32]) by adicia.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id E843537E42; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:10:49 +0200 (MEST) Received: from positron.hjc.be (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by positron.hjc.be (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6R7AnN3003355; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:10:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (rimshot@localhost)h6R7Amjc018783; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:10:49 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: positron.hjc.be: rimshot owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:10:48 +0200 (CEST) From: Wouter Clarie X-X-Sender: rimshot@positron.hjc.be To: Jim Durham In-Reply-To: <200307262229.48486.durham@jcdurham.com> Message-ID: References: <200307251349.38413.durham@jcdurham.com> <20030726074239.GB61353@comp.chem.msu.su> <200307262229.48486.durham@jcdurham.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NATD and Address Redirection X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:10:54 -0000 On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Jim Durham wrote: > On Saturday 26 July 2003 04:07 am, Wouter Clarie wrote: > > > VNC works through NAT just fine. Never had any problems with that. > > Yes, I do that all the time, but in this case, the VNC *server* was the > one behind the NAT, instead of the client, which is the usual case. Yes, that's what I meant. It should work, since it does here. VNC Server on the internal network, accessed from outside. //Wouter