From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Jan 30 14:30:46 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.79.126]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB3E815E16 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:30:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@yogotech.com) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.79.115]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA12669; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 15:30:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA14563; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 15:30:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 15:30:30 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200001302230.PAA14563@nomad.yogotech.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: William Woods Cc: Nate Williams , Doug White , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Coleman Kane Subject: Re: FW: DSL natd rules.... In-Reply-To: References: <200001301834.LAA13968@nomad.yogotech.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > The original configuration worked well, and I don't think you would > > notice any problems using the double-NAT configuration whatsoever, > > although you could simply hook all your boxs directly to the Cisco and > > use it that way instead, which may be easier for you. > > > > The NAT implementation on the cisco seemed to work quite well... > > I would but I want the FreeBSD box to be a firewall for the LAN Shouldn't be necessary with NAT on the Cisco. No-one can connect into any internal interfaces because of NAT. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message