Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:18:36 +0100 From: Ceri <ceri@techsupport.co.uk> To: User & Ian Patrick Thomas <ipthomas_77@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, marcs@draenor.org Subject: Re: ppp -nat or natd? Message-ID: <20010719151836.B28635@cartman.techsupport.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20010718191915.C51074@localhost>; from ipthomas_77@yahoo.com on Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 07:19:15PM -0400 References: <014d01c10ebc$fe3ee5e0$0200a8c0@mark2> <3B554F28.89960778@i-clue.de> <20010718122504.C22510@cartman.techsupport.co.uk> <20010718191915.C51074@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 07:19:15PM -0400, User & Ian Patrick Thomas said:
> As it was put forth by Ceri on Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 12:25:04PM +0100...
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 10:56:08AM +0200, Christoph Sold said:
> > > Anyhow, having an external dynamic IP combined with ipfw would be a
> > > major hassle.
> >
> > Why ?
> > Can't you just use the -u and -dynamic flags to natd and use the interface
> > name in your ipfw ruleset ?
> >
> > I'm not having a go, but I'm going to be in this situation soon and that was
> > my plan. Will it not work ?
> >
> You can use ipfw fairly easily with a dynamic IP externally. Check out
> this link
>
> www.freebsd.org/tutorials/dialup-firewall/index.html
Excellent, that's pretty much exactly what I had planned (except for the
PPP bit - this is going to be on a cable modem).
I just got a freaked out when Christoph said it was hassle.
By the way, the section regarding options TCP_RESTRICT_RST needs updating as
that option no longer exists (hence cc'd to marcs@draenor.org).
Ceri
--
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
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?20010719151836.B28635>