From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ramin Alidousti <ramin@cannon.eng.us.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Modem to Ethernet Bridge
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 13:24:09 -0400
Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org
Message-ID: <20020905172409.GI7289@cannon.eng.us.uu.net>
References: <F37GuSKqGABtvNLepTy000017d8@hotmail.com> <200209051442.g85EgNv00719@vulcan.rissington.net> <20020905153012.GH7289@cannon.eng.us.uu.net> <200209051541.g85Ff5v00844@vulcan.rissington.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Return-path: <netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200209051541.g85Ff5v00844@vulcan.rissington.net>
Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org
List-Help: <mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter>,
	<mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=subscribe>
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: <https://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Antony Stone <Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk>
Cc: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org

On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 04:40:59PM +0100, Antony Stone wrote:

> On Thursday 05 September 2002 4:30 pm, Ramin Alidousti wrote:
> 
> > I don't see why a natted solution is required here.
> 
> I agree that a NATted solution is not *required*, however I think it should 
> work and is therefore an effective solution to the problem.   Depending on 
> the routing issues on other machines, it might well be the simplest solution, 
> involving changes on only one machine.

So you mean, when he _can_ ping and _cannot_, eg, ftp; then an effective
solution to the problem is to nat????  Explain why.  

Ramin