>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 re
atd -dynamic -n de0 -p 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
--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 = 1.2.
> -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
e-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL 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 tha
lto:[EMAIL 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
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 in case I'm missing something.
Configuration is:
FreeBSD 5.2.1
3 - NICS (de0, de1, de
