Your ipfw rules are invalid.
They seem to work perfectly. My only gripe is that static rule
#15100 is required to succeed with redirect_port from 1.2.3.4:80 to
192.168.2.250:80 when 192.168.1.247 requests a web page using the domain
name for 1.2.3.4. I'm looking for a solution that doesn't
PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 2:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IPFW/NATD Transparent Proxy
Anyone up for a challenge?
I've come to the conclusion that IPFW/NATD cannot support
transparent
proxying with ONLY stateful rules. I'd like to hear from
: Sunday, August 08, 2004 2:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IPFW/NATD Transparent Proxy
Anyone up for a challenge?
I've come to the conclusion that IPFW/NATD cannot support
transparent
proxying with ONLY stateful rules. I'd like to hear from anyone who
has
been successful doing so
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 5:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IPFW/NATD Transparent Proxy
On Sunday 08 August 2004 04:38 pm, JJB wrote:
A new rewrite of the FreeBSD
--On Sunday, August 08, 2004 18:43:21 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I want a user on 192.168.1.247 to be redirected to 192.168.2.250:80 when
they request 1.2.3.4:80, where 1.2.3.4 is a PUBLIC ip number on the FreeBSD
internet gateway. Again, the configuration is
de0 = PUBLIC IP =
9000 -f /etc/natd.conf
On Sunday 08 August 2004 06:30 pm, Eric Crist wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 5:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IPFW/NATD Transparent Proxy
