From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Dec 21 18:03:50 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA01036 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:03:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from grizzly.fas.com (cc69528-a.mtpls1.sc.home.com [24.1.39.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA01018 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:03:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from stanb@awod.com) Message-Id: <199812220203.SAA01018@hub.freebsd.org> Received: by grizzly.fas.com ($Revision: 1.37.109.23 $/16.2) id AA026052210; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 21:03:30 -0500 Subject: ipfw/NAT rule question To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG (Free BSD Questions list) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 21:03:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Stan Brown" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I am trying to set up a machine using NAT and with real firewall rules. I have most of what I want but am having problems developing a rule to handle the packest that nat has handled. I would like to write a rule like: ipfw add allow all from any to any natd But I get an error message saying only TCP and UDP packets can be specifed by port number. Am I aproaching this the wrong way? Thanks. -- Stan Brown stanb@netcom.com 770-996-6955 Factory Automation Systems Atlanta Ga. -- Windows 98: n. minor patch release for 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition. - (c) 1998 Stan Brown. Redistribution via the Microsoft Network is prohibited. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message