From owner-freebsd-security Wed Jun 27 10:28:35 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from prox.centtech.com (moat2.centtech.com [206.196.95.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A854C37B409 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 10:28:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: (from smap@localhost) by prox.centtech.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA23119; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 12:28:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sprint.centtech.com(10.177.173.31) by prox via smap (V2.1+anti-relay+anti-spam) id xma023115; Wed, 27 Jun 01 12:28:08 -0500 Received: from centtech.com (proton [10.177.173.77]) by sprint.centtech.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23975; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 12:28:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3B3A17A9.5ADF75BA@centtech.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 12:28:09 -0500 From: Eric Anderson Reply-To: anderson@centtech.com Organization: Centaur Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joseph Gleason Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 3 nics - 1 bridge - 2 ips - bad? References: <3B3A0DD7.87EDC7E@centtech.com> <006101c0ff2c$4d75bee0$0a2d2d0a@battleship> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Thanks for the response.. I think you're correct here, I don't see anyway to only enable 2 out of 3 interfaces for bridging. Darn. Oh well, thanks! Joseph Gleason wrote: > > I think you might have a problem with the bridging. > > I'm not sure if you can bridge xl0 and xl1 without including xl2. I could > be wrong > And you might be able to pull something off with IPFW rules to exclude xl2 > from the bridging, but I wouldn't trust it. > > What you want certainly looks like two separate and possibly incompatible > tasks. My advise would be have two machines do this if at all possible. > Machine one being your ethernet bridge. Machine two being the gateway to > your protected network. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Anderson" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 12:46 > Subject: 3 nics - 1 bridge - 2 ips - bad? > > > Lets say I have 3 NIC's in a machine running FreeBSD 4.2. > > Is it possible to have this sort of configuration: > > xl0 - 200.200.200.200 - [interface 1 of bridge0] > > xl1 - NO IP - [interface 2 of bridge0] > > xl2 - 192.168.10.10 - not part of any bridge > > > > the 200.200.200.200 number is of course made up, but signifies an > > interface on the unprotected net. The 192.168.10.10 interface is also > > made up, showing an interface on the protected internal net. Now, the > > xl1 interface is bridged to xl0, creating a port for passing thru to the > > unprotected net that xl0 is on. Is there any inherent security flaws in > > this configuration (besides having a possible computer plug into the xl1 > > port and not being behind a firewall), assuming it works at all? > > > > Thanks in advance.. > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Eric Anderson anderson@centtech.com Centaur Technology (512) > > 418-5792 > > For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and > > wrong. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Anderson anderson@centtech.com Centaur Technology (512) 418-5792 For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message