From owner-freebsd-questions Fri May 31 10: 3:50 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from smtp.tninet.se (sheridan.tninet.se [195.100.94.102]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B24E537B403 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 10:03:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pcmarpxy.tninet.se (bb-62-5-36-29.bb.tninet.se [62.5.36.29]) by sheridan.tninet.se (BMR ErlangTM/OTP 3.0) with ESMTP id 977112.864485.1022.1s3148409sheridan ; Fri, 31 May 2002 19:01:25 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Mark Rowlands To: "Jon Larssen" , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPFW + NATD + stateful ruleset? Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 19:03:39 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.4] References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200205311903.39666.mark.rowlands@minmail.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Friday 31 May 2002 5:32 pm, Jon Larssen wrote: > Hello, > > from reading the list archives it seems that currently a stateful IPFW = rule > in a box that also does the NAT doesn't work well. nope, it works exactly as advertised, it just might not do what you want = or=20 think it should, you could look also take a look at ipfilter. > Granted, I need to study more on the subject; but,=20 http://www.darthik.com/freebsd-docs/Ipfw-HOWTO.txt > can I still use a stateful rule in the non-NATted interface? (the publ= ic =20 > one) yes To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message