From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Feb  5 05:08:22 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A4225DB;
 Thu,  5 Feb 2015 05:08:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from sola.nimnet.asn.au (paqi.nimnet.asn.au [115.70.110.159])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EA011C2;
 Thu,  5 Feb 2015 05:08:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by sola.nimnet.asn.au (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id t1558FBO061675;
 Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:08:17 +1100 (EST)
 (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:08:15 +1100 (EST)
From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>
To: Lev Serebryakov <lev@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: does "nat redirect_port tcp" works for you on -CURRENT?
In-Reply-To: <54D2A7E1.2020902@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20150205160544.D38620@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
References: <54D29A21.2080006@FreeBSD.org> <54D2A7E1.2020902@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 05:08:22 -0000

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