Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:24:35 -0700 From: "Atom Powers" <atom.powers@gmail.com> To: "PFS IT" <pfsbsd@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPFW - Two External Interfaces Message-ID: <df9ac37c0605161624h4da86ac1r585d7db55ed71613@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <996142470605161456n46e43682x392b1f4f2ccfec73@mail.gmail.com> References: <996142470605161456n46e43682x392b1f4f2ccfec73@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/16/06, PFS IT <pfsbsd@gmail.com> wrote: > I am attempting to use IPFW (and either IPNAT or natd) to do the followin= g: > > I have two connections to the outside world coming in to my firewall. > em0 has a static ip and is going to a bridged DSL connection, then > bge1 has a static ip and is going to a a few bonded DS1s. bge0 goes to > my internal network. I am attempting to have NAT on both external > interfaces, and have most outbound traffic move across bge1, while > traffic from/to a particular internal system (We'll call it > internal_system for purposes of this message) to/from a particular > remote system (This we'll call remote_system) port 80 moves across > the DSL line on em0. > It was a situation similar to this that made me switch to pf. The NAT features available to IPFW (at least in the past) are/were pretty limited. If you are not committed to IPFW I would strongly recommend pf. --=20 -- Perfection is just a word I use occasionally with mustard. --Atom Powers--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?df9ac37c0605161624h4da86ac1r585d7db55ed71613>