On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 01:27:22AM -0400, Brian A. Seklecki wrote:
Very bizarre. The only advice I can offer is that maybe it's getting
confused on - $nat_if instead of the more-pragmatic - ($nat-if).
The above worked!
Doesn't make sense though. According to pf.conf(5):
nat-rule = [
* Brian A. Seklecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-06-20 07:39]:
Very bizarre. The only advice I can offer is that maybe it's getting
confused on - $nat_if instead of the more-pragmatic - ($nat-if).
Perhaps the parse code is trying too hard to resolve $nat_if in the
former, and thus finding the
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 10:47:43AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Brian A. Seklecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-06-20 07:39]:
Very bizarre. The only advice I can offer is that maybe it's getting
confused on - $nat_if instead of the more-pragmatic - ($nat-if).
Perhaps the parse code is
* Albert Chin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-06-20 11:24]:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 10:47:43AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Brian A. Seklecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-06-20 07:39]:
Very bizarre. The only advice I can offer is that maybe it's getting
confused on - $nat_if instead of the
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:40:36AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Albert Chin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-06-20 11:24]:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 10:47:43AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Brian A. Seklecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-06-20 07:39]:
Very bizarre. The only advice I can offer is that
I have a perfectly-working 4.0 firewall and decided to move one of the
physical interfaces to a new vlan tagged interface. I changed the
interface name in pf.conf and noticed that NAT wasn't working. The NAT
rule is:
nat_if = vlan109
table tww_nets const { 192.168.1.0/24, 192.168.4.0/24,
Very bizarre. The only advice I can offer is that maybe it's getting
confused on - $nat_if instead of the more-pragmatic - ($nat-if).
Perhaps the parse code is trying too hard to resolve $nat_if in the
former, and thus finding the underlying interface instead of the logical
upper layer vlan
7 matches
Mail list logo
