Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:34:40 -0200 From: "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <alaorneto@gmail.com> To: "Ian Smith" <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: routing problem Message-ID: <2949641c0711240434m71fbbc0fj73c7af80f88bad6d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1071124132024.2076A-100000@gaia.nimnet.asn.au> References: <20071123151355.0B21416A4D4@hub.freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.3.96.1071124132024.2076A-100000@gaia.nimnet.asn.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2007/11/24, Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>: > > ipfw works fine too for these sorts of network policy separation :) So ipfilter is not recommended by you guyz? If that wasn't a typo, this is a non-contiguous netmask. I suspect you > want 255.255.255.224, assuming the default router is in the same subnet? > > Specifying CIDR notation with route and ifconfig can make netmask > fatfingering a bit less likely (eg here XXX.XXX.XXX.130/27) > > I'm not saying this odd netmask explains your problem, nor that I fully > understand the effect of non-contiguous netmasks, but it's worth fixing. My fault again, the mask is 255.255.255.224, I messed up the things the 27 come from XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX/27, you're right! But in the config file it's .224. On which machine/s is NAT translation taking place? Eg if 10.10/16 were > allowed access to the internet via here, where would they get NAT'd to > the external IP? > > Cheers, Ian > > The ipfilter was nating, but I'm not sure about the NAT rules inside the config file, I must recheck it monday, I just tested the redirection rules, do you think this can be the problem? Alaor
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2949641c0711240434m71fbbc0fj73c7af80f88bad6d>