Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:08:15 +1100 (EST) From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> To: Lev Serebryakov <lev@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: does "nat redirect_port tcp" works for you on -CURRENT? Message-ID: <20150205160544.D38620@sola.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <54D2A7E1.2020902@FreeBSD.org> References: <54D29A21.2080006@FreeBSD.org> <54D2A7E1.2020902@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 02:14:41 +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > On 05.02.2015 01:16, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > > > I have such rules in my firewall: > > > > nat 9 config redirect_port tcp 192.168.134.2:16881 16881 > > redirect_port udp 192.158.134.2:16881 16881 redirect_port tcp > > 192.168.134.2:22 22222 > > > > nat 1 config ip $EXT_IP same_ports > One more datapoint: if I merge this to one NAT (and change rules > accordingly), redirect work as expected. > > But I have TWO different NATs in full config (for two ISPs) and don't > want to duplicate all redirection specifications, but want to use > third "common" NAT config. And such usage is shown in ipfw(8)! Just curious .. what's your value of net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass? And does all of this really need cross-posting to net@ as well as ipfw@? cheers, Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150205160544.D38620>