Hello all,
I was looking for a ipfw looking-like statement in PF:
ipfw add 10 fwd ip_proxy,proxy_port from 192.168.1.0/24 to any 25 via fxp0
Is it possible to forward packet to some destination in the same
subnet without changing SRC/DST_ADDRESS ?
I RTFMed but haven't found
Kevin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:41:41 -0600, Rick Barter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin wrote:
I do not think this is technically possible without extensive effort,
nor desirable. The 'ident' (auth, tap, TCP/113) protocol is no longer
very useful for the original purpose, but it is still
Kevin wrote:
I do not think this is technically possible without extensive effort,
nor desirable. The 'ident' (auth, tap, TCP/113) protocol is no longer
very useful for the original purpose, but it is still required by IRC servers.
Many systems and firewalls, including OpenBSD (via the '-H'
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:56:56 -0600, Rick Barter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been racking my brain and reading, but can't figure out how to
setup pf to pass or rdr ident requests to the the proper client
(behind the firewall) that is trying to connect to an irc server. I
want to rdr the
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:41:41 -0600, Rick Barter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin wrote:
I do not think this is technically possible without extensive effort,
nor desirable. The 'ident' (auth, tap, TCP/113) protocol is no longer
very useful for the original purpose, but it is still required
I have been racking my brain and reading, but can't figure out how to
setup pf to pass or rdr ident requests to the the proper client
(behind the firewall) that is trying to connect to an irc server. I
want to rdr the auth (port 113) request coming into my firewall to
whichever machine is
On Nov 25, 2004, at 8:55 PM, William Gan wrote:
I have a question regarding PF
Internet - FW - Local Area Network
|
|
IDS
Is there a way of forwarding an incoming packets from the internet to
two separate interface?
The IDS has no IP address..
Gah, this is the 2nd time in a week I've cc'd the wrong list. Sorry.
-J.
On Nov 25, 2004, at 10:01 PM, Jason Dixon wrote:
On Nov 25, 2004, at 8:55 PM, William Gan wrote:
I have a question regarding PF
Internet - FW - Local Area Network
|
|
Is pf a true 'silent' firewall, not touching the ttl of a packet and thereby not giving out that the packet has gone through an extra layer to get to the destination? If it isn't, is there a way to enable such a feature, if it's yet implemented?
TIA
Adam Wenzel
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 01:14:41AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is pf a true 'silent' firewall, not touching the ttl of a packet and
thereby not giving out that the packet has gone through an extra layer
to get to the destination? If it isn't, is there a way to enable such
a feature, if
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 01:14:41AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is pf a true 'silent' firewall, not touching the ttl of a packet and thereby
not giving out that the packet has gone through an extra layer to get to the
destination? If it isn't, is there a way to enable such a feature, if
Or if there's some way of doing something like ! { fxp0, fxp2 }, that would
make things easier too.
I do not understand what you wanna do, but you can try this:
table fxp0fxp2 const { fxp0 fxp2 }
and then use !fxp0fxp2
But that doesn't seem like a shortcut to me.
Cedric
12 matches
Mail list logo
