2008/3/7, Preston Hagar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> It looks like you already have your problem solved. One utility you
> might want to look at is pftop. With it, you can see pretty much in
> real time what is going through pf and what is being blocked. This
> has helped me a lot to find out which
2008/3/6, Erik Norgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> You can add log statements to your nat rules to see which is applied.
>
> > pass quick proto icmp from any to any keep state
> > pass quick from $adm_net to $cefet_servers keep state
> > pass quick from $cefet_servers to $adm_net keep state
>
> It appe
Hi guyz, let me explain what I have. I work in a school, we have access to
the internet, two internal networks (academic and administrative) and we
have to connect to some servers in another school because we share databases
and to video-conference. I have a FreeBSD box with PF and squid, i want al
Hi guys, does the release for the powerpc arch. runs fine in a PowerMac G5
box? Anyone have already tried this?
Cheers,
Alaor
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send a
Hi guyz, like I've said in other topic, I'm building a BSD box that'll act
as a gateway between three private networks and the internet. I want that
each private network can ping to each other, and I can do that till I
activate my pf firewall. When I do pfctl -e it stop working.
The output of pfct
Hi guyz, I'd like to thank all of you. I somehow find the error, there're
three errors actually, first, the machine in 192.168.1 network was not using
my bsd box as gateway (duh! Thankz Ian), second, I had a error in rc.conf,
it had a letter where it was not supposed to have, and third, the pf was
2007/12/12, Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Should be 'defaultrouter', but then it's a route to an apparent local
> router, whereas your em0 appears to be your public internet connection?
Yes, it's default router, like I said I was not in my work then I wrote by
myself this lines, like I didn'
2007/12/11, Erik Norgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> Summing up, your local networks should be able to communicate accross
> the BSD box once you have gateway_enable="YES", you do not need NAT for
> that to work. If it doesn't work, then your firewall may be blocking.
>
> For access to the Internet fro
2007/12/11, Jonathan Horne [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> out of curiosity, are you pinging from the 4-interfaced-connected BSD
> box, or some other workstation that is trying to use the BSD box as its
> gateway?
>From a workstation that is trying to use BSD box as its gateway and have the
ip of the BSD
Guyz,
here's my netstat-r output:
Routing tables
Internet:
Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire
default 192.168.1.80 UGS 0 4 xl0
10.10/16 link#4 UC 0 0 xl2
localhost localhost UH 0 0 lo0
192.168.1 link#2 UC 0 0 xl0
zion.administrativ 00:00:54:19:e7:9a UHLW 1 16 xl0 1151
192.168.1.80 00
2007/12/11, Chris Haulmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> It sounds like you are wanting a router to function between two
> different
> subnets.
>
> Take a reading under 29.2.5 at this link:
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/network-routin
> g.html
>
> Chris
Yes Chris, but I a
Guyz, that's my doubt, if I have two separated networks, and a freebsd
connected in the two of them, I'm supposed to be able to ping to a machine
in 10.10.0 network from a machine in 192.168.1 network, for example, byonly
setting gateway_enable="YES"?
I know private networks are for private use, bu
Hi guyz, it's me again. I think I don't know what I'm doing, so I ask for
help. I have three private networks(192.168.1, 10.10.0, 192.168.2) and a
link to the external world 200.212.X, what I want to do is that my FreeBSD
connect all the networks to the external world and the 192.168.1 to the
10.10
2007/11/24, Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> No I didn't mean that; use your own favourite packet filter, any of them
> can handle what you've described. Bill suggested pf - lots of people
> seem to like it a lot - and I use ipfw because I (mostly) know how to.
I always had linux servers, so I
2007/11/24, Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> ipfw works fine too for these sorts of network policy separation :)
So ipfilter is not recommended by you guyz?
If that wasn't a typo, this is a non-contiguous netmask. I suspect you
> want 255.255.255.224, assuming the default router is in the sam
2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I'm going to the server room to test the command. And yes, the DNS is
> > working properly. I just came from the room and I did the command dig @
> > 192.168.1.1 google.ca and it said no server reached, then I did dig @
> > 127.0.0.1 google.ca and i
>
> First off, what's the output of "sysctl net.inet.ip.forwarding"? If
> it is 0, then reboot and see if it starts working.
The return was: net.inet.ip.forwarding 1
Routed is running, named is running, the server itself can ping to any
network, I don't know what else to test.
__
>
> By ping, mean ping. I don't know what "have access" means, but I know
> what
> "ping" means.
Well I say have access because the icpm would be blocked, but I would still
have communicationwith the network even if I didn't ping. But yeah, for
meright now ping and have access is the same once t
2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECT
2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTE
2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > OK guyz, I did some tests and I found the error, like you said, it's a
> > config problem with the routes, I thought the routed dae
t's not a problem if they had access to
internet too.
How I would set up my rc.conf with my static routes?
Thankz for the attention you're having with me guyz, hugs!
2007/11/21, Steve Bertrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto wrote:
> > Sorry,
work
never, no? Is there any chance of the traffic of the network be the
responsible for that???
Thankz the help
2007/11/21, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> In response to "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Sorry my english skill
Sorry,
searchdomain ...
nameserver 192.168.1.2
not 192.168.1.1 as I've said before.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTE
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto wrote:
> > If I turn off linux and set the rl0 to 192.168.1.1 it
> > stop resolving names but can ping to anywhere. Help!!!
> > in the rc.conf
> > gateway_enable="YES"
> > defaultrouter="X.X.X
Hi, I have some troubles building my internet gateway to my network. I
already have a gateway machine running under linux, with two interfaces eth0
(192.168.1.1) and eth1 (external world), but I installed a new server
running FreeBSD6.2 with ipfilter and squid, in the test time with had the ip
192.
Hi, I have some troubles building my internet gateway to my network. I
already have a gateway machine running under linux, with two interfaces eth0
(192.168.1.1) and eth1 (external world), but I installed a new server
running FreeBSD6.2 with ipfilter and squid, in the test time with had the ip
192.
27 matches
Mail list logo
