On 09:14, Wed 29 Jun 05, Tim Pushor wrote: > No ideas? > > Even though most are using asterisk behind a nat with simple port > forwarding, it looks like I am unable to do this with pf. I have grown > to love pf so much it would be a shame to have to dump it on MY network :-( > > Thanks, > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Problems with voip and state clashes > Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 10:55:48 -0600 > From: Tim Pushor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: PF List <[email protected]> > > > > Hi Friends, > > I am having real trouble with PF and Asterisk behind a NAT. > > The long and short of it is that I'd really like NAT a subset of > traffic, without putting the connection in the translation table. That > is, I want to translate the source ip:port on the outbound, but not > worry about return traffic (since it is handled by a RDR, hence the clash). > > Is that possible? > > I know this is short on details, but if theres an easy way to do that, I > don't need to bore you with them ;-) > > Thanks a lot, > Tim
Tim, Without details of your current setup it's hard to help. Please provide some more info. -- Michiel van Baak http://michiel.vanbaak.info [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7E0B9A2D "Why is it drug addicts and computer afficionados are both called users?"
