From owner-freebsd-net Tue Oct 23 18:29: 2 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx3.uninterruptible.net (cyclonis.catonic.net [63.160.99.136]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A16F437B403 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:28:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.uninterruptible.net (ns1.uninterruptible.net [216.7.46.11]) by mx3.uninterruptible.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C2DA5503; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 20:25:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Spaz.Catonic.NET (tnt6-216-180-5-61.dialup.HiWAAY.net [216.180.5.61]) by mail.uninterruptible.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D8B5005C; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 01:28:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: by Spaz.Catonic.NET (Postfix, from userid 1002) id EAF5A331B; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 01:30:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Spaz.Catonic.NET (Postfix) with ESMTP id E01D44C18; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 01:30:35 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 01:30:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Kris Kirby To: Kirk Strauser Cc: Subject: Re: Silly problem has me stumped In-Reply-To: <87vgh5naag.fsf@pooh.int> Message-ID: X-Tech-Support-Email: bofh@catonic.net X-Frames: I hate frames. Organization: Non Illegitemus Carborundum MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 23 Oct 2001, Kirk Strauser wrote: > I already RTFM, and TFM doesn't say a thing about how to do what I want, > except for command line options of specific clients, which doesn't solve my > problem. Yeah. The issue here is that the machine is picking the IP address as the "closest" IP to the internet -- the RFC1918 address over the WAN link. My mind is also mud at the moment, but this much I can thing of: By forcing ssh, et al. to bind to a specific IP, you can avoid the non-traceable issue. And a tidbit just surfaced from the mud! Use ipfw + natd to nat anything that would directly come from / to the private address and use "natd -u -a 1.2.3.1" (assumes .1 is the gateway). Careful that you don't wind up looking at every single packet though. The other solution would be to accuse your ISP of being incompentent / cheap, etc. and complain until you get a public /30 for the WAN link. I'm a fascist; I wouldn't have taken a link without a public WAN ip. ----- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR | TGIFreeBSD... 'Nuff said. | ------------------------------------------------------- "Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message