On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Vulpes Velox wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:56:12 -0400 (EDT) > Matthew Emmerton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Brett Glass wrote: > > > > > While working with a FreeBSD system this afternoon, I did something which killed > > > natd (the NAT daemon), which was processing packets in the usual way via ipfw > > > and a divert socket. > > > > > > The result? Network communications on the system simply went dead. > > > > > > It seems to me that ipfw should be able to "self-heal" (that is, bypass the > > > rule) or reinvoke a daemon that's attached to a divert socket. Otherwise, > > > the process that's attached to the socket becomes an Achilles' heel for > > > the whole system. Crash it for any reason, and the system's offline. > > > > > > Ideas? > > > > Use kernel-mode IPNAT instead of user-mode natd? > > What is kernel-mode IPNAT? If you are using ppp to dial in, use the options -nat and -ddial That will keep your connection up 24h/day .
Regards, Uli. > > _______________________________________________ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > +-----------------------------------+ | Peter Ulrich Kruppa | | - Wuppertal - | | Germany | +-----------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
