RE: IPFW acting weird OR invalid ruleset?

2004-07-02 Thread Philip Payne
steve, Yes everything else seems to work fine. There are currently 2 PCs with this issue. 1 is XP the other is Win2k. This ruleset worked fine on FreeBSD 5.1, but I reformatted the box, and install 5.2.1 uploaded the rc.firewall.rules and natd.conf files, since the network

IPFW acting weird OR invalid ruleset?

2004-06-29 Thread whizkid
Hey everyone. Below is my natd.conf file and my rc.firewall.rule file. I cannot figure it out, but if one of my machines that is behind my Masqurading Firewall tries to d/l a file that is on a FTP site, it fails to connect. FreeBSD 5.2.1 machine with 2 nics. xl0 outside Nic fxp0 inside Nic

Re: IPFW acting weird OR invalid ruleset?

2004-06-29 Thread Remko Lodder
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey everyone. Below is my natd.conf file and my rc.firewall.rule file. I cannot figure it out, but if one of my machines that is behind my Masqurading Firewall tries to d/l a file that is on a FTP site, it fails to connect. Does the ipfw offer logging (i dont know ipfw)

Re: IPFW acting weird OR invalid ruleset?

2004-06-29 Thread Steve Bertrand
Hey everyone. Below is my natd.conf file and my rc.firewall.rule file. I cannot figure it out, but if one of my machines that is behind my Masqurading Firewall tries to d/l a file that is on a FTP site, it fails to connect. Are you using a passive FTP connection? Steve FreeBSD 5.2.1

Re: IPFW acting weird OR invalid ruleset?

2004-06-29 Thread Steve Bertrand
Hey everyone. Below is my natd.conf file and my rc.firewall.rule file. I cannot figure it out, but if one of my machines that is behind my Masqurading Firewall tries to d/l a file that is on a FTP site, it fails to connect. Ok, I jumped earlier, but actually re-RTF ruleset, I've got a couple

Re: IPFW acting weird OR invalid ruleset?

2004-06-29 Thread whizkid
[snip] Ok, I jumped earlier, but actually re-RTF ruleset, I've got a couple questions: - Is it only one pc that can't get through? - Do other services work from behind NAT? (http etc) It looks like rule 4109 should be BEFORE 4090, as 4090 denies all traffic and stops, and internal traffic