2007/11/24, Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > ipfw works fine too for these sorts of network policy separation :)
So ipfilter is not recommended by you guyz? If that wasn't a typo, this is a non-contiguous netmask. I suspect you > want 255.255.255.224, assuming the default router is in the same subnet? > > Specifying CIDR notation with route and ifconfig can make netmask > fatfingering a bit less likely (eg here XXX.XXX.XXX.130/27) > > I'm not saying this odd netmask explains your problem, nor that I fully > understand the effect of non-contiguous netmasks, but it's worth fixing. My fault again, the mask is 255.255.255.224, I messed up the things the 27 come from XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX/27, you're right! But in the config file it's .224. On which machine/s is NAT translation taking place? Eg if 10.10/16 were > allowed access to the internet via here, where would they get NAT'd to > the external IP? > > Cheers, Ian > > The ipfilter was nating, but I'm not sure about the NAT rules inside the config file, I must recheck it monday, I just tested the redirection rules, do you think this can be the problem? Alaor _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
