Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 23 Apr 1997 21:46:08 +1000 (EST)
From:      Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
To:        chris@dilbert.bb.cc.wa.us (Chris Coleman)
Cc:        avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: IPFILTER
Message-ID:  <199704231153.EAA25862@hub.freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970422135817.10245B-100000@dilbert.bb.cc.wa.us> from "Chris Coleman" at Apr 22, 97 02:04:59 pm

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In some mail from Chris Coleman, sie said:
> 
> I am running IPNAT and
> Currently i have this as the only rule in my rule set, so everyone comes 
> back as the same person from the DNS. 
> 
> map fxp0 10.0.0.0/8 -> 208.8.136.10/32 portmap tcp/udp 10000:65000
> 
> I would like to split up the domain in to 5 sections (according to 
> buildings) and map all the buildings separately to different ip addresses.  
> And have the last rule catch all of the other connections and run them 
> through current ip address.
> 
> I tried to do this, but couldn;t figure out how to make a rule to "catch 
> all" of the remaining ones.  Do rules have precedence?  what if i just 
> want to map one ip address to a specific ip address and catch all the 
> rest through the normal rules?

Rules are parsed, top to bottom.

So if you put your "catch-all" last, it will work.

Darren



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704231153.EAA25862>