From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Magnus Solvang Subject: Re: Port Forwarding for port 25 (again...) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 04:33:29 +0100 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <20030225033329.GA1815@first.knowledge.no> References: <20030225005407.GA28447@first.knowledge.no> <200302242153.47253.netfilter@newkirk.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200302242153.47253.netfilter@newkirk.us> Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: netfilter@lists.samba.org Quoting Joel Newkirk (netfilter@newkirk.us): [...] | > But a telnet to the old, external ip-address of the mailserver | > just hangs (untill it returns a "No route to host". | | Which sums it up pretty accurately, I suspect. If the firewall has an | external IP x.y.z.49, then it will handle traffic to that IP. If the MX | (or your telnet test) points to x.y.z.34, then the upstream router will | be looking for something that responds to _that_ IP. If it cannot find | anything using that IP, then there is no route. Hm... A logical error, in other words. *must* *get* *sleep* *now*... Somehow I thought that the firewall would notice the connection attempt from the router, and would be able to redirect the query from there. | Presuming that x.y.z | are the same in both cases, you may get the results you want with: | | ifconfig eth0:1 add x.y.z.34 I have it working now, thanks to you :) - M