I know that ssh does a reverse dns lookup of the ip you connect from -
no matter if its local or not.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:23:56 -0400
> Robert Huff wrote:
>
>>
>> Christopher J. Ruwe writes:
>>
>> > On a KVM virtualized host, I ru
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:23:56 -0400
Robert Huff wrote:
>
> Christopher J. Ruwe writes:
>
> > On a KVM virtualized host, I run FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p3 and some
> > qjails, 8.3-RELEASE. The jails are connected all via lo0 on
> > 10.0.0.0.
> >
> > While by the large working as expected, I have
Christopher J. Ruwe writes:
> On a KVM virtualized host, I run FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p3 and some
> qjails, 8.3-RELEASE. The jails are connected all via lo0 on
> 10.0.0.0.
>
> While by the large working as expected, I have noticed one
> pecularity I have failed to pinpoint: When launching pro
On a KVM virtualized host, I run FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p3 and some qjails,
8.3-RELEASE. The jails are connected all via lo0 on 10.0.0.0.
While by the large working as expected, I have noticed one pecularity I
have failed to pinpoint: When launching processes with some network
interaction, like sshin
Hi, I have a firewall for NAT operations only. While doing NAT, server
crashes. Below you can find the required info about my problem. Thanks.
Some useful info about my NAT server:
FreeBSD xxx.cc.boun.edu.tr 7.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.3-RELEASE #2: Fri Sep
17 15:09:54 EEST 2010 x...@xxx.cc.boun.edu
Hi, I have a firewall for NAT operations only. While doing NAT, server
crashes. Below you can find the required info about my problem. Thanks.
Some useful info about my NAT server:
FreeBSD xxx.cc.boun.edu.tr 7.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.3-RELEASE #2: Fri Sep
17 15:09:54 EEST 2010
x...@xxx.cc.
I'm straggling to get my FTP to work
I'm running jail on my FreeBSD with proftpd and I use ipnat to forward
any requests to my box to that jail for that service
this is what i put inside of my ipnat.conf
rdr bce0 64.237.55.65/27 -> lama proxy port ftp ftp/tcp
64.237.55.65/27 this
remote server
>
> for that i decided to use ipnat, here is rule i used
>
> map bce0 mx -> mx
>
> same goes for web
>
> but after activating these rules my host itself is not able to reach
> out to anything remote..
>
> --
> http://alexus.org/
>
the other thi
I'm running system with 2 jails
host runs named
1st jail runs mail
2nd jail runs web
jails needs to be able to reach out to outside world, for example mail
server needs to be able to communicate with remote server
for that i decided to use ipnat, here is rule i used
map bce0 mx ->
9:09 PM, alexus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM, alexus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i need to redirect bunch of ports, or port-range from outside to my
>>>>>> jail
>>>>>>
>>>&g
2009/5/17 Patrick Lamaizière :
> Le Sun, 17 May 2009 16:16:51 -0400,
> alexus :
>
>> i dont see how things are obvious for you as they not so obvious for
>> me. first of all my ipf default policy to allow everything.
>>
>> so the original question is for ipnat
alexus skrev:
2009/5/16 Roger Olofsson <240olofs...@telia.com>:
Odhiambo ワシントン skrev:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:09 PM, alexus wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM, alexus wrote:
i need to redirect bunch of ports, or port-range from outside to my jail
# /etc/rc.d/ipnat reloa
Le Sun, 17 May 2009 16:16:51 -0400,
alexus :
> i dont see how things are obvious for you as they not so obvious for
> me. first of all my ipf default policy to allow everything.
>
> so the original question is for ipnat and not for ipf
>
> now for non-passive (active) i
2009/5/16 Roger Olofsson <240olofs...@telia.com>:
>
>
> Odhiambo ワシントン skrev:
>>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:09 PM, alexus wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM, alexus wrote:
>>>>
>>>> i need to redirect bunch of ports,
Odhiambo ワシントン skrev:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:09 PM, alexus wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM, alexus wrote:
i need to redirect bunch of ports, or port-range from outside to my jail
# /etc/rc.d/ipnat reload
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: checkyesno: ipnat_enable is set to YES.
/etc/rc.d
alexus said the following on 2009-05-13 20:09:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM, alexus wrote:
i need to redirect bunch of ports, or port-range from outside to my jail
# /etc/rc.d/ipnat reload
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: checkyesno: ipnat_enable is set to YES.
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG
2009/5/14 alexus
> 2009/5/14 Odhiambo ワシントン :
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:09 PM, alexus wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM, alexus wrote:
> >> > i need to redirect bunch of ports, or port-range from outside
2009/5/14 Odhiambo ワシントン :
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:09 PM, alexus wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM, alexus wrote:
>> > i need to redirect bunch of ports, or port-range from outside to my jail
>> >
>> > # /etc/rc.d/ipna
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:09 PM, alexus wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM, alexus wrote:
> > i need to redirect bunch of ports, or port-range from outside to my jail
> >
> > # /etc/rc.d/ipnat reload
> > /etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: checkyesno: ipnat_enable is set
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM, alexus wrote:
> i need to redirect bunch of ports, or port-range from outside to my jail
>
> # /etc/rc.d/ipnat reload
> /etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: checkyesno: ipnat_enable is set to YES.
> /etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: run_rc_command: doit: /sbin/ipnat
i need to redirect bunch of ports, or port-range from outside to my jail
# /etc/rc.d/ipnat reload
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: checkyesno: ipnat_enable is set to YES.
/etc/rc.d/ipnat: DEBUG: run_rc_command: doit: /sbin/ipnat -F -C -f
/etc/ipnat.rules
0 entries flushed from NAT table
2 entries flushed
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Steve Krawcke
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:08 PM
To: mail.list freebsd-questions
Subject: ipnat dmz/internal network issue
I have a gateway setup wing freebsd 7.1
rest of the network
em0 is my external, em1 is my internal and em2 is my DMZ
I am using ipf and ipnat to get access to the internet, but I am
having an issue.
I am able to get to the internet via nat on both em1 and em2.
I am able to get port/IP redriection working from em0 -> em2
I
redirect local traffic to the secondary machine.
Here are my ipnat rules;
rdr fxp0 0/0 port 85 -> 192.168.1.10 port 85
rdr tun0 0/0 port 85 -> 192.168.1.10 port 85
rdr dc0 0/0 port 80 -> 192.168.1.1 port 8180
where 192.168.1.1 is the local machine and 192.168.1.10 is the
secondary mach
David Banning skrev:
I am attempting to route local and external traffic to a second machine
on port 85 to apache.
The redirection works for external traffic coming in but I cannot seem
to redirect local traffic to the secondary machine.
Here are my ipnat rules;
rdr fxp0 0/0 port 85
I am attempting to route local and external traffic to a second machine
on port 85 to apache.
The redirection works for external traffic coming in but I cannot seem
to redirect local traffic to the secondary machine.
Here are my ipnat rules;
rdr fxp0 0/0 port 85 -> 192.168.1.10 port 85
i've asked this question before, but i must have been unclear. i hope this
is better:
i'm puzzled by how ipnat works, particularly by the fact that when the ip's
on an inside nic are mapped to the ip on my outside nic, i have to configure
ipfilter to allow any ip that might hit
+++ dacoder [01/03/09 13:17 -0500]:
updating my system friday from the feb 7 version of 7.1 to the latest broke
tcp and udp (but *not* icmp) over ipnat, which had worked forever with my
current ipfilter rules and ipnat mapping rules, which are pretty simple.
what has changed?
/etc/ipnat.rules
updating my system friday from the feb 7 version of 7.1 to the latest broke
tcp and udp (but *not* icmp) over ipnat, which had worked forever with my
current ipfilter rules and ipnat mapping rules, which are pretty simple.
what has changed?
/etc/ipnat.rules:
map age0 10.0.0.0/24 ->
a try. Thanks!
- Michael
From: Odhiambo Washington [mailto:odhia...@gmail.com]
Sent: Fri 1/23/2009 6:39 AM
To: Michael VanLoon
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Dumb ipnat question
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Michael VanLoon
wrote:
I have built a simple
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Michael VanLoon <
micha...@noncomposmentis.net> wrote:
> I have built a simple 7.1 system in a VM. I built a custom kernel that is
> basically GENERIC minus some hardware stuff I don't need, plus a few things
> that look cool.
>
> When
*ping*
From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org on behalf of Michael VanLoon
Sent: Thu 1/22/2009 3:43 PM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Dumb ipnat question
I have built a simple 7.1 system in a VM. I built a custom kernel that is
basically
I have built a simple 7.1 system in a VM. I built a custom kernel that is
basically GENERIC minus some hardware stuff I don't need, plus a few things
that look cool.
When I attempt to run the ipnat command, I get the error:
/dev/ipnat: open: No such file or directory
Sure enough, ther
Hi,
I'm using release 7.0 and looking for an idea to flush one specific
active ipnat session, such like these one:
MAP 192.168.0.8142667 <- -> 82.229.222.721746 [88.191.60.158 993]
MAP 192.168.0.8140045 <- -> 82.229.222.744303 [66.163.181.189 5050]
MAP 192.
Hi.
Does anybody know how to make ipnat map/or proxying pptp traffic ?
Problem is:
mpd server with pptp - somwhere in internet.
Gateway with ipnat.
Clients behind gateway can not access pptp server at same time.
I found something like:
map bce1 0/0 -> 0/0 proxy port 1723 pptp/tcp
but it does
Uses pf instead but I know the following works:
### /etc/pf.conf ###
nat on dc0 from fxp0:network to any -> (dc0)
### /etc/rc.conf ###
pf_enable="YES"
After editing the files, run '/etc/rc.d/pf start'
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
ht
gt;>
>> map dc0 192.168.2.0/24 -> External_IP/32
>>
>>
>> alexus yazmış:
>>>
>>> hi
>>>
>>> i cant figure something out, maybe someone can help me...
>>>
>>> i have two interfaces on my 7.0-RELEASE-p1 dc0 and fxp0, dc0 has
hi
i cant figure something out, maybe someone can help me...
i have two interfaces on my 7.0-RELEASE-p1 dc0 and fxp0, dc0 has
public IP, and fxp0 is internal, my ipnat.rules looks like this
map dc0 192.168.2.0/24 -> 0/32
su-3.2# ipnat -l
List of active MAP/Redirect filters:
map dc0 192.168.
su-3.2# ipnat -l
List of active MAP/Redirect filters:
map fxp0 172.16.172.16/32 -> 0.0.0.0/32
rdr fxp0 0.0.0.0/0 port 22 -> 172.16.172.16 port 22 tcp
List of active sessions:
su-3.2#
this configuration seems to be working just like i wanted it, i just
wanted to make sure its correct in te
ECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de alexus
Envoyé : mercredi 30 avril 2008 03:35
À : freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Objet : Re: ipnat
anyone?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM, alexus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i can't seem to figure this out
>
> su-3.2# ipnat -l
>
anyone?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM, alexus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i can't seem to figure this out
>
> su-3.2# ipnat -l
> List of active MAP/Redirect filters:
> rdr fxp0 0.0.0.0/32 port 22 -> 172.16.172.16 port 22 tcp
>
> List of active sessi
i can't seem to figure this out
su-3.2# ipnat -l
List of active MAP/Redirect filters:
rdr fxp0 0.0.0.0/32 port 22 -> 172.16.172.16 port 22 tcp
List of active sessions:
su-3.2# netstat -tan | grep LISTEN | grep 22
tcp4 0 0 172.16.172.16.22 *.*LISTE
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerahmy Pocott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 7:07 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: FreeBSD Questions
> Subject: Re: Difficulties establishing VPN tunnel with IPNAT
>
>
>
> On 27/11/2007, at 5
On 27/11/2007, at 5:49 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jerahmy Pocott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 4:48 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Difficulties establishing VPN tunnel with IPNAT
Perhaps, but I'v he
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerahmy Pocott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 4:48 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: FreeBSD Questions
> Subject: Re: Difficulties establishing VPN tunnel with IPNAT
>
>
> Perhaps, but I'v heard a
Jerahmy Pocott skrev:
On 26/11/2007, at 4:47 AM, Roger Olofsson wrote:
Hello Jerahmy,
Some progress it seems? Why not set it to allow gre from VPN server
only? Ie pass in quick on fxp1 proto gre from to any?
The way you ask your question, 'make it work without static ip or
allowing all
On 26/11/2007, at 4:47 AM, Roger Olofsson wrote:
Hello Jerahmy,
Some progress it seems? Why not set it to allow gre from VPN server
only? Ie pass in quick on fxp1 proto gre from to any?
The way you ask your question, 'make it work without static ip or
allowing all traffic', isn't that co
Jerahmy Pocott skrev:
On 26/11/2007, at 1:00 AM, Roger Olofsson wrote:
Hello Jerahmy, (sorry for top-posting, btw).
Gre is protocol 47. In your firewall rules you only allow/block
protocols tcp/udp/icmp. If you want to use PPTP you will need to allow
both the port and the protocol for it.
On 26/11/2007, at 1:00 AM, Roger Olofsson wrote:
Hello Jerahmy, (sorry for top-posting, btw).
Gre is protocol 47. In your firewall rules you only allow/block
protocols tcp/udp/icmp. If you want to use PPTP you will need to
allow both the port and the protocol for it.
I put:
pass out qui
g and when.
My guess is that the VPN client is using a protocol like IPSEC (IP
protocol 50) and possibly port 500 (IKE) for which you will have to
activate the ipnat proxy.
map WAN internal_ip/24 -> 0.0.0.0/32 proxy port 500 ipsec/udp
You might also try to disable the blocking of fr
Perhaps, but I'v heard a lot of good things about IPF and IPNAT,
especially since the nat is all in kernel where as natd is userland, so
there is a slight performance boost possibly there as well..
It is not difficult to switch back to my old set up, but I thought I
would
give it a c
on and now you don't. So,
clearly, in your case, it's WORSE.
Ted
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerahmy Pocott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 2:12 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: Roger Olofsson; FreeBSD Questions
> Subject
guess is that the VPN client is using a protocol like IPSEC (IP
protocol 50) and possibly port 500 (IKE) for which you will have to
activate the ipnat proxy.
map WAN internal_ip/24 -> 0.0.0.0/32 proxy port 500 ipsec/udp
You might also try to disable the blocking of fragged packets. For
so
Well the main reason is that it was part of IPF, and IPF seemed to be
better
than IPFW? So when trying out IPF I also used IPNAT.. I had no problems
with natd but it seemed I should use the IPNAT if I was using IPF?
On 25/11/2007, at 8:00 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
The other thing you can
Ted
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Roger Olofsson
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:09 PM
> To: Jerahmy Pocott
> Cc: FreeBSD Questions
> Subject: Re: Difficulties establishing VPN tunnel with IPNAT
>
>
&g
like IPSEC (IP
protocol 50) and possibly port 500 (IKE) for which you will have to
activate the ipnat proxy.
map WAN internal_ip/24 -> 0.0.0.0/32 proxy port 500 ipsec/udp
You might also try to disable the blocking of fragged packets. For some
VPN clients this can cause problems.
e to allow traffic on
that port, but
users are getting connection refused messages.
I will include my ipf rules, I clearly need some sort of rule to
allow inbound for
the VPN to work, though I think the ipnat is breaking the Sonic Wall
client. Which
is strange because everything worked fine
Sorry, the issue is connecting TO any out side VPN, not connecting from
outside.
I tested with ipf set to accept all and it still failed, so I figured
it must be ipnat..
I had no issues when using ipfw/natd.
On 25/11/2007, at 12:50 AM, Roger Olofsson wrote:
Hello Jerahmy,
Assuming you
Hello Jerahmy,
Assuming you want to connect from the outside to your VPN.
Have you made sure that port 2401 is open for inbound traffic in your
ipf.rules?
You might also want to do 'ipnat -C -f '. Man ipnat ;^)
Greeting from Sweden
/Roger
Jerahmy Pocott skrev:
Hello,
I recent
Hello,
I recently decided to give ipf and ipnat a try, previously I had
always been using
ipfw and natd. Since switching over I can no longer establish a VPN
tunnel from
any system behind the gateway.
I did 'ipf -F a' to flush all rules but I was still unable to connect
so I th
We have a box doing routing and NAT using IPNAT that freezes up after a couple
days. We have swapped out the Box with a different model and continue to
see the same problem. Symptoms are that the machine no longer passes
traffic and the console is unresponsive to any keyboard input (not
> (different facility). The problem I'm having is that it's a fairly
> well-trafficked site. The ipnat entries table fills up quickly (30,000
> I think is the max), and so I have to ipnat -F fairly often (every 5
> minutes or so). The problem with this is that it kills any out
facility). The problem I'm having is that it's a fairly
well-trafficked site. The ipnat entries table fills up quickly (30,000
I think is the max), and so I have to ipnat -F fairly often (every 5
minutes or so). The problem with this is that it kills any outgoing
connections (like my mysql r
NO, You only need IPNAT and gateway_enabled="YES" in your rc.conf file if you
have a LAN behind your FBSD system
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of RYAN M. vAN GINNEKEN
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 2:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj
Just wondering if i need IPNAT and gateway_enabled="YES" in my rc.conf file? It
is a stand alone server so does not need to route any packets but does run
proftpd.
Can i just have ipf running or do i need ipnat too in this situation
--
Computer King & CaN Mail - Sales S
I use IPFilter firewall and I need to remap only packets with specified
port in destination. Other traffic should not be remapped.
IPNAT(5) says following:
Matching of packets has now been extended to allow more complex compares. In
place of the address which is to be translated, an IP
On 1/6/07, Michael P. Soulier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have a simple port-forwarding rule that I want to work from my
gateway to a box on my LAN, but it doesn't seem to be working.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ sudo ipnat -l
Password:
List of active MAP/Redirect filters:
rdr tun0 0.0.
I have a simple port-forwarding rule that I want to work from my
gateway to a box on my LAN, but it doesn't seem to be working.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ sudo ipnat -l
Password:
List of active MAP/Redirect filters:
rdr tun0 0.0.0.0/32 port 6882 -> 192.168.1.3 port 6882 tcp
Trying to telnet
Answer found, NAT implemented using libalias library: man 3 libalias
--
Nathan Vidican
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:59:29 -0400, Nathan Vidican wrote
> using:
>
> ppp -ddial -nat
>
> How does the "-nat" flag implement nat for PPPoE ? Using ipfw/natd,
&g
using:
ppp -ddial -nat
How does the "-nat" flag implement nat for PPPoE ? Using ipfw/natd,
ipnat/ipfilter, and is it hard-coded or can it be optionally changed?
Can I use rules created for/through ipfilter/ipnat, or should I simply
disable NAT translation on the ppp interface and
Nikos, thank you. I appended " mssclamp 1440 " in ipf.rule, it works
now! And I have tried not use it but add "set link mtu 1440" in mpd.conf, and
failed. Yes, the problem occurs when NATing, and mssclamp 1440 is the key.
fbsd, thank you anyway.
Arnold Lee
2006 -04-14
On Wednesday 12 April 2006 11:34, Arnold Lee wrote:
> I am in a small lan and want to use fb 6.0 as a router to share internet
> access. I use mpd 3.18 to dial adsl on demand. I configured ipnat with :
> map rl0 10.0.0.0/8 -> 0.0.0.0/32 portmap tcp/udp auto
> map rl0 10.0.0.0/
There is nothing wrong with FreeBSD 6.0
It's the way you activated ipf that is wrong.
Ipfilter's ipnat function is not an independent function.
You have to code this in rc.conf
ipfilter_enable = "YES"
ipnat_enable = "YES"
and make sure there is no default ipf.rul
I am in a small lan and want to use fb 6.0 as a router to share internet
access. I use mpd 3.18 to dial adsl on demand. I configured ipnat with :
map rl0 10.0.0.0/8 -> 0.0.0.0/32 portmap tcp/udp auto
map rl0 10.0.0.0/8 -> 0.0.0.0/32
And then I use my client compute(windows 2000 P
fbsd_user wrote:
You can use this format of the ipnat map command
map dc0 10.0.10.1/29 -> 20.20.20.5-20.20.20.7
.. snip ..
The above version of the command also results in a syntax error at the "-".
Juergen
___
freebsd-questions@freebs
You can use this format of the ipnat map command
map dc0 10.0.10.1/29 -> 20.20.20.5-20.20.20.7
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Erik Norgaard
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 7:45 AM
To: Juergen Heberling
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.
Juergen Heberling wrote:
Due to historical reasons I can not just take a /29 or /30 block out of
the middle of the cidr I will ultimately use -- this FreeBSD server will
implement a firewall on an existing connection replacing an old Cisco
router that only NAT'd. So I will see if things can wo
Erik Nørgaard wrote:
.. snip ..
Well, my suggestion is not to exhaust your precious /28 address space
right away. And don't make your life unnecessary difficult, why choose
the addreses in the middle for bimap?
Rather than using all your external ip's right away I would save some
for la
Juergen Heberling wrote:
/etc/ipnat.rules contains:
map em0 192.168.1.0/24 -> 204.134.75.1-10
.. snip ..
I tried your suggestion of using the cidr notation format and that work;
thank you!
However I am concerned about overlapping mappings in the cidr range with
host-to-host maps - my cidr
Erik Nørgaard wrote:
Juergen Heberling wrote:
Could someone please check me on this ...
fw1# ipnat -CFn -f /etc/ipnat.rules
0 entries flushed from NAT table
1 entries flushed from NAT list
syntax error error at "-", line 1
/etc/ipnat.rules contains:
map em0 192.168.1.0/24 ->
Juergen Heberling wrote:
Could someone please check me on this ...
fw1# ipnat -CFn -f /etc/ipnat.rules
0 entries flushed from NAT table
1 entries flushed from NAT list
syntax error error at "-", line 1
/etc/ipnat.rules contains:
map em0 192.168.1.0/24 -> 204.134.75.1-10
.. snip
Could someone please check me on this ...
fw1# ipnat -CFn -f /etc/ipnat.rules
0 entries flushed from NAT table
1 entries flushed from NAT list
syntax error error at "-", line 1
/etc/ipnat.rules contains:
map em0 192.168.1.0/24 -> 204.134.75.1-10
.. snip ..
line 1 in the rule
opped at that point, or later, because I
could always connect to my server, and the server could always connect to the
internet. The situation is still the same.
I have tried to do
- "ipf -Fa -f /etc/ipf.rules; ipnat -FC -f /etc/ipnat.rules" - Didnt help
- "cd /etc/rc.d; ./ipfil
internet. The situation is still the same.
> >
> > I have tried to do
> > - "ipf -Fa -f /etc/ipf.rules; ipnat -FC -f /etc/ipnat.rules" - Didnt help
> > - "cd /etc/rc.d; ./ipfilter restart; ./ipnat restart" - Didnt help
> > - Launch ettercap again and e
internet. The situation is still the same.
I have tried to do
- "ipf -Fa -f /etc/ipf.rules; ipnat -FC -f /etc/ipnat.rules" - Didnt help
- "cd /etc/rc.d; ./ipfilter restart; ./ipnat restart" - Didnt help
- Launch ettercap again and exit "cleanly" after telling it to stop sn
internet. The situation is still the same.
I have tried to do
- "ipf -Fa -f /etc/ipf.rules; ipnat -FC -f /etc/ipnat.rules" - Didnt help
- "cd /etc/rc.d; ./ipfilter restart; ./ipnat restart" - Didnt help
- Launch ettercap again and exit "cleanly" after telling it to stop sn
connect to the
internet. The situation is still the same.
I have tried to do
- "ipf -Fa -f /etc/ipf.rules; ipnat -FC -f /etc/ipnat.rules" - Didnt help
- "cd /etc/rc.d; ./ipfilter restart; ./ipnat restart" - Didnt help
- Launch ettercap again and exit "cleanly" after
internet. The situation is still the same.
I have tried to do
- "ipf -Fa -f /etc/ipf.rules; ipnat -FC -f /etc/ipnat.rules" - Didnt help
- "cd /etc/rc.d; ./ipfilter restart; ./ipnat restart" - Didnt help
- Launch ettercap again and exit "cleanly" after telling it to stop sn
I have a FreeBSD firewall which does packet filtering and NAT.
The internal address range is 172.16.64.0/24. The only filtering
is incoming on the external NIC, fxp0.
The machine also runs mpd for remote access.
By pure chance I was tailing ipf.log when I connected an XP laptop
to the mpd servic
answer is that is the syntax of the ipnat rules.
read the handbook its all there.
vr0 is the interface faceing the public internet just like syntax
requires
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of cedric
Gross
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:54
Thanks you, it's working !
But why using vr0 instead of vr1 for map instruction ? Network
192.168.0.32/27 is attach to vr1 not vr0 ...
Is it an IPNat mystery or have you an answer ?
> -Message d'origine-
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De l
You have ipnat statements wrong. should be liked this
map vr0 10.0.0.0/8 -> 0.32 proxy port ftp ftp/tcp
map vr0 10.0.0.0/8 -> 0.32 portmap tcp/udp 2:6
map vr0 10.0.0.0/8 -> 0.32
map vr0 192.168.0.0/30 -> 0.32 portmap tcp/udp auto
map vr0 192.168.0.32/27 -> 0.32 portmap t
Hello,
I have my FreeBSD 5.4 box with 3 NIC :
Xl0 LAN with network 10.0.0.0/8 and 192.168.0.0/30
VR0 Wan 84.96.23.106/32
VR1 LAN with network 192.168.0.32/27 and 192.168.0.96/27
I use IPNAT and Ip filter.
I'm doing NAT from Xl0 to Vr0, it's working fine
I'm trying to do the
On 1/3/06, fbsd_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/2/06, fbsd_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I see "tun" in your ipnat rule.
> > That means you are using ppp for phone dialup connection.
> > Every time you lose your phone connection you get
On 1/2/06, fbsd_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see "tun" in your ipnat rule.
> That means you are using ppp for phone dialup connection.
> Every time you lose your phone connection you get different IP
from
> your ISP.
> Use NAT function of PPP and not ipna
On 1/2/06, fbsd_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see "tun" in your ipnat rule.
> That means you are using ppp for phone dialup connection.
> Every time you lose your phone connection you get different IP from
> your ISP.
> Use NAT function of PPP and not ipna
I see "tun" in your ipnat rule.
That means you are using ppp for phone dialup connection.
Every time you lose your phone connection you get different IP from
your ISP.
Use NAT function of PPP and not ipnat and your problem will go away.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTE
On 1/1/06, Parv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> wrote perikillo thusly...
> >
> > root#chmod +x /etc/rc.d/ipnat.rules
>
> Why did you need to add execute bit for the rules?
>
>
> - Parv
>
> --
>
>
Hi Parv.
No, the file name is ipnat.bug, i make one mistake
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
wrote perikillo thusly...
>
> root#chmod +x /etc/rc.d/ipnat.rules
Why did you need to add execute bit for the rules?
- Parv
--
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo
2005 3:16 AM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: ipnat -CF -f /etc/ipnat.rules
>
> Hi everyone,
> I have just put together a router/firewall using 5.4 RELEASE
> and IPFILTER. Everything is working fine except I have to manually flush
> the NAT table every tim
1 - 100 of 221 matches
Mail list logo