On 3/14/07, Alexandre Biancalana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/14/07, Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes. but ipfw is most universal having all needed things at one place.
firewalling, routing, shaping, etc.
PF too. is all at same place.
And pf has nat built-in, so it runs in
.
That is, I want per-interface default routes
(is this the correct term?).
How do I do this?
Thanks,
-mark
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL
and packets sourced from the
netB IP address go out the netB physical interface.
That is, I want per-interface default routes
(is this the correct term?).
How do I do this?
using ipfw
rule example:
add xxx fwd router_for_a_link all from outgoing_address/range to any
please learn at least
address go out the netB physical interface.
That is, I want per-interface default routes
(is this the correct term?).
How do I do this?
Thanks,
-mark
Route has more information if you want to setup default routes for interfaces.
Either that, or natd will yield a solution for you.
-Garrett
That is, I want per-interface default routes
(is this the correct term?).
How do I do this?
Thanks,
-mark
Route has more information if you want to setup default routes for
interfaces. Either that, or natd will yield a solution for you.
natd needs IPFW and is quite CPU consuming compared
Route has more information if you want to setup default routes
for interfaces.
I'm familiar with route(8)... but I don't see how that will work.
Can you expand on your comment?
I'm likely to do the ipfw approach suggested by Wojceich,
as soon as I rebuild with options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD,
On 3/14/07, Mark Messier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Route has more information if you want to setup default routes
for interfaces.
I'm familiar with route(8)... but I don't see how that will work.
Can you expand on your comment?
I'm likely to do the ipfw approach suggested by Wojceich,
as
interfaces.
I'm familiar with route(8)... but I don't see how that will work.
Can you expand on your comment?
I'm likely to do the ipfw approach suggested by Wojceich,
as soon as I rebuild with options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD,
exactly, sorry i forgot to mention about that option.
I'm likely to do the ipfw approach suggested by Wojceich,
as soon as I rebuild with options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD,
This could be done with pf route-to too.
yes. but ipfw is most universal having all needed things at one place.
firewalling, routing, shaping, etc.
On 3/14/07, Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm likely to do the ipfw approach suggested by Wojceich,
as soon as I rebuild with options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD,
This could be done with pf route-to too.
yes. but ipfw is most universal having all needed things at one place.
10 matches
Mail list logo