Hi folks.. Yuri is right, I've got a mail server, web server, asterisk box and shell box which all have seperate IP's (on two subnets) which hang off different inbound ports.
The 504T did have the ability to do it with the old firmware, but I patched it to support ADSL2 and it put the 'upgrade' gave a new interface where you have to add the internal servers to a list of 'Lan Servers' which can only be on the same subnet as the internal of the router, and then add the virtual servers by port o one of the 'Lan Server' addresses.. So it can only port forward to one internal IP, and not on the LAN behind the pfsense box, only on the pfsense box itself, which of course I can port forward on, but I'm using the system for testing some stateless UDP stuff that dosn't like multiple NAT hops... Anyway, I've got around the problem for the moment, by using a borrowed Cisco 800 in half-bridge mode, and putting the external IP on the pfsense WAN port. Thinking about it a bit more I could have just used the 'dmz' setting in the 504T to route all inbound traffic to the pfsense and nat it from there, but I might fall on the too-much-nat sword. I might give that a go tomorrow night when I've finished the current testing process. Hmmmm, or I should just buy one of these Cisco units. Not cheap, but a far better device than any of the consumer junk out there. Might have to wait for Xmas on that... The other thing I might look at is using a decent quality modem (Linksys AM300?) in half-bridge mode, which would do the same as the cisco for 1/8th the price.. Cheers, Me. > > I think you're missing what he means. > > Different ports to different servers, eg port 80 to his web server, > > port 25 to his mail server. > > > > Yuri > > > according to portforward.com the 504T can do this fine, I have the 502T which > has the same webUI by the looks of it, and it's possible just it's just a bit > obfuscated, compared to the 504G > > >
