From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rasca Subject: Re: port forwarding with one interface to trace traffic? Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:36:34 +0100 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <400FD1E2.8090604@triad.de> References: <400E9EB3.4070309@triad.de> <200401212207.07929.Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk> <400FCD45.3050604@Loudoun-Fairfax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <400FCD45.3050604@Loudoun-Fairfax.com> 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"; format="flowed" To: Jeffrey Laramie Cc: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org Hi, Jeffrey Laramie schrieb: > >> >> 3. Connect a hub (not a switch) to the printer's ethernet cable (or to >> the Mac's ethernet cable), and plug the Linux machine running ethereal >> into the hub, so you can sniff the packets off the wire without any NAT. >> >> > > This is dangerously OT, but what's the difference? I always thought that > the difference between a switch and a hub was simply a matter of > internal plumbing that affected how the pipes were connected and had no > effect on the actual tcp/ip connections. I've used them interchangeably > and haven't seen a difference. Maybe someone has a link that could > educate me more better! :-) A "hub" broadcasts all packets to all port. And yes - that was the way I choosed, cause it's more simple to setup (I found an old hub..) and it's working. thx to Antony. cu rasca -- _______________________________________________________________ | Triad Berlin Projektgesellschaft mbH | http://www.triad.de/ |