docs/81199: handbook/ipfw does not mention gateway_enable in rc.conf

[David Adam]

The following reply was made to PR docs/81199; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: David Adam <zanchey at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au>
To: Rong-En Fan <rafan at infor.org>
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit at FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: docs/81199: handbook/ipfw does not mention gateway_enable in
 rc.conf 
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 12:53:46 +0800 (WST)

 On Wed, 18 May 2005, Rong-En Fan wrote:
 > >Description:
 > 	Handbook 24.5 and 24.6
 > 	http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/firewalls-ipf.html
 > 	http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/firewalls-ipfw.html
 >
 > 	in 24.6, which contains ipfw/natd, and it does not explicitly mention
 > 	gateway_enable="YES" if you are going to use private ip. While 24.5.3
 > 	(section about ipf) does it.
 >
 > >Fix:
 > 	Add similar things in 24.5.3 to 24.6.3.
 
 The following patch should cover it.
 
 ----- firewalls.chapter.81199.patch begins here -----
 --- firewalls.chapter.orig	2005-05-08 22:15:43.000000000 +0800
 +++ firewalls.chapter.1	2005-05-19 12:49:45.000000000 +0800
 @@ -2265,6 +2265,11 @@
 
  	<programlisting>net.inet.ip.fw.verbose_limit=5</programlisting>
        </warning>
 +
 +      <para>If you are using NAT, enable IP forwarding:</para>
 +
 +      <programlisting>gateway_enable="YES"</programlisting>
 +
      </sect2>
 
      <sect2 id="firewalls-ipfw-cmd">
 ----- firewalls.chapter.81199.patch ends here -----
 
 Can Rong-En or someone else using IPFW to do NAT confirm that this is
 required before it gets checked in, please? (I assume there are still
 some people out there who do...)
 
 David Adam
 zanchey at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au