From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 22 12:57:21 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0F7116A4CE for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:57:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88A2343D64 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:57:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from matt@atopia.net) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (pcp02025587pcs.plsntv01.nj.comcast.net[68.44.29.50]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20040622125658016005pj0je>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:56:58 +0000 Message-ID: <40D82E03.1000306@atopia.net> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:02:59 -0400 From: Matt Juszczak User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040526) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Swiger References: <40D3752A.8000809@atopia.net> <40D46636.1020909@mac.com> <3514.134.210.7.179.1087850914.squirrel@134.210.7.179> <2E739980-C3C6-11D8-BF1C-003065ABFD92@mac.com> <40D74EBA.2010402@atopia.net> <8389EA60-C3CB-11D8-BF1C-003065ABFD92@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <8389EA60-C3CB-11D8-BF1C-003065ABFD92@mac.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Redirection with a bridge ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:57:22 -0000 What are some of the other approaches (if you dont mind). I can't really do a NAT, I'd really like to stay with a bridge and not do any routing. Charles Swiger wrote: > On Jun 21, 2004, at 5:10 PM, Matt Juszczak wrote: > [ ... ] > >> So basically, I either have to use some other form of redirecting web >> packets (a bogus DNS server maybe), or switch to a NAT instead of a >> bridge. Correct? > > > Yes, more or less. There are other approaches which could be taken > which are more complex, but the basic answer is that NAT is probably > the right approach. >