From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steven M Campbell <Netfilter@SCampbell.net>
Subject: Re: dnatting
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:40:52 -0400
Message-ID: <42D54414.1090702@SCampbell.net>
References: <57F9959B46E0FA4D8BA88AEDFBE582907432@pxtbenexd01.pxt.primeexalia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org>
In-Reply-To: <57F9959B46E0FA4D8BA88AEDFBE582907432@pxtbenexd01.pxt.primeexalia.com>
List-Id: <netfilter.vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter>,
	<mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: </pipermail/netfilter>
List-Post: <mailto:netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter>,
	<mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: "Gary W. Smith" <gary@primeexalia.com>
Cc: Netfilter ML <netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>

Gary W. Smith wrote:
>I still don't agree with your statement.  For people who have single
>IP's that need simple DNAT/SNAT'ing for the scenario provided (which was
>a single port mapped) your process would be overkill and just as
>cumbersome as adding an additional rule to iptables.
>
>  
Okay, you have my advice, your network your rules.