From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Jan 30 14:34:40 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail.cybcon.com (mail.cybcon.com [216.190.188.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B783E14D1F for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:34:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd@cybcon.com) Received: from laptop.cybcon.com (william@pm3a-41.cybcon.com [205.147.75.170]) by mail.cybcon.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19274; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:34:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <200001302230.PAA14563@nomad.yogotech.com> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:29:32 -0800 (PST) From: William Woods To: Nate Williams Subject: Re: FW: DSL natd rules.... Cc: Coleman Kane , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Doug White Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG OK, I am a bit confused here, I have herd that I CAN use NAT on the cisco to th the gateway/firewall/router(FreeBSD box) and then I Can't use nat on cisco to firewall if I am going to use natd on the FreeBSD box.... Which is it? On 30-Jan-00 Nate Williams wrote: >> > 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 ---------------------------------- E-Mail: William Woods Date: 30-Jan-00 Time: 14:27:51 This message was sent by XFMail ---------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message