Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:23:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Crist J. Clark" <cjc@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> To: alex@intertain.interlog.com (Alex Specogna) Cc: gjvc@extremis.demon.co.uk (George Cox), freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NATD and Public IP Addresses Message-ID: <200001120223.VAA09268@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001110843240.24305-100000@intertain.interlog.com> from Alex Specogna at "Jan 11, 2000 09:05:03 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alex Specogna wrote, [snip] > Here is what I am trying to achive: > I have 6 public addresses which need to map directly to 6 > different machines behind the firewall. (bad drawing below) > > Public Address IPFW Private Addresses > x.x.x.x -------> 10.1.1.x > . > . > . > x.x.x.x+5 -------> 10.1.1.x+5 > > This is how I envision this working. User attempts to connect to a > machine with the Public IP address of x.x.x.x. The data is recived by my > router, and re-directed to the public interface of the IPFW box. Once the > data reaches the IPFW box it applies the appropriate rules and passes it > off to the appropriate machine on the private interface. Shouldn't this be done by routing and not NAT. Why not give the 10.1.1.x machines the public addresses and then just have the firewall box route packets to them? > I hope that this explains what I am trying to do a bit better. I do have > to apologize for the confusing thought-train on the previous message. > Again any help with this matter would be appreciated. -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@home.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001120223.VAA09268>