On 5/18/09 9:46 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
As a test, can you try it without using the 192.168.20.1-192.168.20.10
address range format, and see if that behaves any better? You can use
this instead: {192.168.20.0/29 192.168.20.8/31 192.168.20.10}
I already tried with 192.168.21.1, 192.168.21.2 and with a table. Nothing change in nat rules. -- Cristiano Deana - FreeCRIS "Ho iniziato a usare FreeBSD perche' m$ usava me. ed e' spiacevole"
