Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 01 Oct 1998 12:50:55 -0500
From:      "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <jeff-ml@mountin.net>
To:        Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com>
Cc:        freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: IPFW, Dual network cards
Message-ID:  <3.0.3.32.19981001125055.010c99c8@207.227.119.2>
In-Reply-To: <199810011508.IAA00256@bubba.whistle.com>
References:  <3.0.3.32.19980930223953.007890e4@207.227.119.2>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 08:08 AM 10/1/98 -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote:
>Enabling forwarding in rc.conf == setting "gateway_enable=YES" in rc.conf.
>"IP forwarding" == "IP routing".

Gotcha, but isn't natd required if you use private IPs?  I'd test it, but my system is still TKO.

>No, routers don't typically look into the packets that they route.
>Use ipfw to block ports 137,138,139 if you want to stop NetBEUI stuff.

Ah yes, blocked at the router and from dial-in with filters, so there was no need for running ipfw in my case.  If a network were setup with 2 ether ports on the router (Cisco or FBSD) then _every_ machine doesn't need it.

The problem I see with the colo's is protecting them from each other, after you protect yourself.  Steven's setup can do this.  My preferance is to use a second ether port on the router.


Jeff Mountin - Unix Systems TCP/IP networking
jeff@mountin.net

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.3.32.19981001125055.010c99c8>