Date: 08 Dec 2002 09:06:32 -0500 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com> To: Josh Brooks <user@mail.econolodgetulsa.com> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: port redirect with ipfw NOT NAT (not NAT) Message-ID: <44znrga9lj.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <20021208010714.J77087-100000@mail.econolodgetulsa.com> References: <20021208010714.J77087-100000@mail.econolodgetulsa.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Josh Brooks <user@mail.econolodgetulsa.com> writes:
> > Have you tried something like:
> >
> > add 01000 fwd 10.10.10.10,5050 tcp from any to 10.10.10.10 50
>
>
> When I do this, I get:
>
> ipfw: getsockopt(IP_FW_ADD): Invalid argumentipfw: getsockopt(IP_FW_ADD):
> Invalid argument
>
>
> Any ideas ? Is there any reason why port forwarding with ipfw is special
> and annoying ? Or is there really something qualitatively different about
> this action that warrants this behavior ?
Do you, perhaps, mean something like:
If ipaddr is not a local address, then the port number (if speci-
fied) is ignored, and the packet will be forwarded to the remote
address, using the route as found in the local routing table for
that IP.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44znrga9lj.fsf>