Re: something through nat - something not
From: Charles Swiger (cswiger_at_mac.com)
Date: 06/23/04
- Previous message: Steve Bertrand: "Re: (no subject)"
- In reply to: Tomica Crnek: "something through nat - something not"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:05:09 -0400 To: Tomica Crnek <crni@zgwireless.net>
On Jun 23, 2004, at 4:27 PM, Tomica Crnek wrote:
> box is connected to one (outside) network with 2 interfaces
What does this mean?
> what I want to do is to configure it to route packets to these
> "chosen" subnets directly - no nat, but I want to be able to see
> entire outside network from inside net also.
Standard IP-based routing will move packets from one subnet to another
subnet, without using NAT. I'm not sure what you mean by "able to see"
in this context, however: are you talking about being able to send IP
traffic to them, are you talking about having them on the same physical
subnet by bridging, and thus be able to ARP the hosts even though they
are on two different logical networks, or what?
> So these packets should be passed to natd. I don't know which outside
> interface will be chosen because both outside interfaces are in
> dynamic routing backbone.
Above you said "no nat", here you ask about passing some traffic to
natd. What are you trying to do? Do you want to use NAT or not?
Your second comment about "which outside interface will be chosen" is
also unclear. What dynamic routing is going on, and what does the
topology look like?
-- -Chuck _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Steve Bertrand: "Re: (no subject)"
- In reply to: Tomica Crnek: "something through nat - something not"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
