Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:50:48 -0700 From: "Crist J . Clark" <cjclark@reflexnet.net> To: Steve Lewis <nepolon@systray.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Q: network topologies, routing, TCP/IP Message-ID: <20000817135048.A87786@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10008171037070.4392-100000@greg.ad9.com>; from nepolon@systray.com on Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 10:50:56AM -0700 References: <20000817004403.F28027@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com> <Pine.BSF.4.05.10008171037070.4392-100000@greg.ad9.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 10:50:56AM -0700, Steve Lewis wrote: [snip] > I was planning to use redirect_port instead, because there is only a > narrow list of ports on that bastion host that I want to be outwardly > accessible (port 80 and a couple other web interfaces), but there are more > services running on the box for the benefit of those inside the LAN (a > RDBMS, source management, etc). I have used redirect_port successfully in > the past. Any reason I shouldn't use it here? No, redirect_port should be just fine. I tend to save redirect_port for when mapping different port numbers from one machine to the other, but I think it's just an ease of administration/asthetic issue. I am not aware of technical reasons. -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@alum.mit.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?20000817135048.A87786>