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, 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, I messed up the things the 27
come from XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX/27, you're right! But in the config file it's

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?

freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to