/* HINT: Search archives @ http://www.indyramp.com/masq/ before posting!
/* ALSO: Don't quote this header. It makes you look lame :-) */
> realization, that I wasn't going to be able to do what I want, Static NAT, or
> 1:1 Nat. MASQ Seems only to be able to do 1 to Many NAT. Well, I've got 61 IP
> addreses, there is no sense in using Masq when I shoudln't have to ...
Why not? I've got an elementary school running on a single P133/48MB system -
56 users behind it. Never a problem, and it is connected to a cable modem -
providing more bandwidth than a single T1 by far.
> kernel (2.2.17 specifically)? Has anyone done it? Can someone point me to a
> better example than just the iproute2 ones? (I've read them, and can't seem to
So far, I've not been able to get iproute2 to work either.
> familiar with linux and SysV unix in general ... This would be easy with FW1,
> but we just don't have the $$ for it (anyone ever used fw-1 for linux?).
I am running a FW-1 box on RH 6.1. Yes NAT is easy with it, yes it is
_expensive_ BTW, I've got a UUNet T1 at a client's site that has a UUNet FW-1
box that is "professionally" configured and managed - doing the FW-1 version
of Masq rather than NAT. They seem to think it's a good idea....
Phil
_______________________________________________
Masq maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Admin requests can be handled at http://www.indyramp.com/masq-list/ --
THIS INCLUDES UNSUBSCRIBING!
or email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE read the HOWTO and search the archives before posting.
You can start your search at http://www.indyramp.com/masq/
Please keep general linux/unix/pc/internet questions off the list.
