just a couple quick pf/nat questions

Jay Moore jaymo at cromagnon.cullmail.com
Mon Dec 13 18:29:17 PST 2004


On Monday 13 December 2004 02:35 pm, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
>
> Still, I'm planning to migrate to pf, since it's "supposed" to be
> better.  It seems (from my murky understanding) like it would make
> tricky NAT stuff easier, so there would be some benefits (battle.net,
> here I come :).
>
> Problem is, it seems like there's a whole new logical approach with pf,
> and I can't figure out if pf does the NAT itself or if you still need
> the nat_enable etc.

No - the NAT config is incl in pf.conf
 
> Also, with ipfw, I just ran a script that grabbed the current dynamic IP
> and used it when the script was run.  How does pf handle dynamic IPs?
> If I'm understanding the pf manual at OpenBSD.org, it will simply take
> the network interface and apply any IP assigned to a given rule.  Am I
> right?

You are correct.
 
> Has anyone else gotten pf running to their satisfaction on 5.3?

Haven't tried that yet, but I will soon. I've been using it for quite a while 
on OpenBSD boxes & it is pretty much wonderful (except it won't pass a Cisco 
VPN connection through the firewall)
 
> And are there any pf config generation pages out there yet?

You may want to read the pf User's Guide at:

http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/index.html

It's got loads of info, and isn't a difficult read. Also, there is a sample 
config file for a SOHO included. If you Google for pf.conf, you'll turn up 
butt-loads of others. 
 
> I also noticed that all the sample scripts I've looked at seem to
> specify ports with either an explicit port number or a macro defined
> right in the config.  I take it pf doesn't use the service tags from
> /etc/services?

Correct-isimo - you're catching on  :)

Jay


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list