From: Alexander Samad <alex@samad.com.au>
Cc: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
Subject: Re: FORWARD RULE -- please help
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 21:36:30 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040309103630.GI24806@samad.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200403090920.04308.Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1896 bytes --]
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:20:04AM +0000, Antony Stone wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 March 2004 9:10 am, Alexander Samad wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:46:46AM +0000, Antony Stone wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 09 March 2004 7:54 am, Nilesh wrote:
> > > > 203.129.224.149 is my firewall machine running
> > > > IPTABLES and 192.168.0.22 is my local machine on 2090
> > > > port service is running
> > > >
> > > > 202.129.227.3 is his firewall IP and 192.168.1.25 is
> > > > his local machine where on 2090 port services is
> > > > running
> > > >
> > > > I want to communicate this both internal
> > > > machines(192.168.0.22 and 192.168.1.25) through
> > > > firewall
> > >
> > > If you want his 192.168.1.0/24 network to be able to communicate with
> > > your 192.168.0.0/24 network then you should investigate IP in IP
> > > tunnelling / encapsulation (see the Linux Advanced Routing Guide at
> > > http://lartc.org for a simple guide to how to do this), or else set up a
> > > VPN (eg : FreeS/WAN, or the IPsec implementation built into the 2.6
> > > kernel).
> >
> > Or he could use MASQ on both sides with 2 dnat rules
>
> True, however this is not a scalable solution (won't work for more than one
> client or server at each end of the link for example), and it means that the
> client and server see the public addresses of the other end, not the private
> ones (although you could probably overcome this with another couple of SNAT
> rules loaded on top).
true just doing it simple for the one off
>
> It would probably work okay in a restricted situation such as Nilesh
> specified, however.
>
> Regards,
>
> Antony.
>
> --
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-09 10:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-09 7:54 FORWARD RULE -- please help Nilesh
2004-03-09 8:46 ` Antony Stone
2004-03-09 9:10 ` Alexander Samad
2004-03-09 9:20 ` Antony Stone
2004-03-09 10:36 ` Alexander Samad [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040309103630.GI24806@samad.com.au \
--to=alex@samad.com.au \
--cc=netfilter@lists.netfilter.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox