From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Dec 8 6: 6:36 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC0F337B401 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2002 06:06:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03.attbi.com [204.127.202.63]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17A2E43E4A for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2002 06:06:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com) Received: from be-well.ilk.org (lowellg.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.147.188.198]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03) with ESMTP id <2002120814063300300cgh86e>; Sun, 8 Dec 2002 14:06:33 +0000 Received: from be-well.ilk.org (lowellg.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.147.188.198] (may be forged)) by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB8E6W7v035055; Sun, 8 Dec 2002 09:06:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com) Received: (from lowell@localhost) by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB8E6WP1035052; Sun, 8 Dec 2002 09:06:32 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: be-well.ilk.org: lowell set sender to freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org using -f To: Josh Brooks Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: port redirect with ipfw NOT NAT (not NAT) References: <20021208010714.J77087-100000@mail.econolodgetulsa.com> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 08 Dec 2002 09:06:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20021208010714.J77087-100000@mail.econolodgetulsa.com> Message-ID: <44znrga9lj.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Lines: 23 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Josh Brooks 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