On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 11:44:13PM -0500, Eric Faden wrote:
> Thanks for the replies. I suppose my main justification for it was to
> treat each of the interfaces completely independently to allow for
> individual control to ports by IP, which I understand is a little odd
> and I'm not even sur
Tom Eastep wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 15:42 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
>> I guess it makes sense in a way. You want a zone that is defined as "all
>> external hosts that communicate through a particular firewall interface
>> using a particular address on that interface". You are not the firs
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 15:42 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> I guess it makes sense in a way. You want a zone that is defined as "all
> external hosts that communicate through a particular firewall interface
> using a particular address on that interface". You are not the first to
> want to do someth
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:49 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 17:21 -0500, Eric Faden wrote:
> > So I have a server hosted at Serverbeach (Debian Etch). This box has an
> > IP (eth0) in one subnet (192.168.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.128). I have
> > also been granted 3 extra IPs (e
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 17:21 -0500, Eric Faden wrote:
> So I have a server hosted at Serverbeach (Debian Etch). This box has an
> IP (eth0) in one subnet (192.168.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.128). I have
> also been granted 3 extra IPs (eth0:0, eth0:1, eth0:2) in another subnet
> (192.168.1.2 thro
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 05:21:15PM -0500, Eric Faden wrote:
> So I have a server hosted at Serverbeach (Debian Etch). This box has an
> IP (eth0) in one subnet (192.168.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.128). I have
> also been granted 3 extra IPs (eth0:0, eth0:1, eth0:2) in another subnet
> (192.168.1.
