Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 00:40:56 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@corbulon.video-collage.com> To: Barry Irwin <bvi@itouchlabs.com> Cc: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Does natd(8) really need to see _all_ packets? Message-ID: <200302040540.h145evwa062764@corbulon.video-collage.com> In-Reply-To: <002801c2cc0e$dba94ff0$83ee35ca@Beastie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> your best solution is to add a skipto before the divert rule. Thank you, Barry, but is not that what I'm doing in the sample? > You can therefore skip any traffic from a private address to another > private address. Anything not matched by the skipto rule gets fed to > the divert socket. The trick was to figure out, what could be skipped, and what could not. I'm wondering, if I got that right -- it seems to work find, but does it leave something open? Before I can recommend it to others, I'd like to be more sure :-) -mi > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mikhail Teterin" <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> > To: <net@FreeBSD.org> > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 7:27 AM > Subject: Does natd(8) really need to see _all_ packets? > > > > Hi! > > > > This question bothered me for a while -- most of the traffic on my > > LAN is just that -- local. Yet my gw/firewall machine only has one > > interface -- with two IP addresses -- private and public on it. > > > > The DSL modem is plugged into the switch just like everything else. > > > > I doubt this is a unique setup. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200302040540.h145evwa062764>