Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto
alaorneto at gmail.com
Sat Nov 24 04:34:42 PST 2007
2007/11/24, Ian Smith <smithi at nimnet.asn.au>:
> ipfw works fine too for these sorts of network policy separation :)
So ipfilter is not recommended by you guyz?
If that wasn't a typo, this is a non-contiguous netmask. I suspect you
> want 255.255.255.224, assuming the default router is in the same subnet?
> Specifying CIDR notation with route and ifconfig can make netmask
> fatfingering a bit less likely (eg here XXX.XXX.XXX.130/27)
> I'm not saying this odd netmask explains your problem, nor that I fully
> understand the effect of non-contiguous netmasks, but it's worth fixing.
My fault again, the mask is 255.255.255.224, I messed up the things the 27
come from XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX/27, you're right! But in the config file it's
On which machine/s is NAT translation taking place? Eg if 10.10/16 were
> allowed access to the internet via here, where would they get NAT'd to
> the external IP?
> Cheers, Ian
> The ipfilter was nating, but I'm not sure about the NAT rules inside the
config file, I must recheck it monday, I just tested the redirection rules,
do you think this can be the problem?
More information about the freebsd-questions