Re: [Fwbuilder-discussion] Port NAT problem (bug?)

[Vadim K. <va...@vk...>]

there is a good chance I never tried this configuration. How does 
iptables code that you get look like ?

--vk


On Thursday, November 21, 2002, at 10:57 AM, Jon Jacobsen wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to know if anyone has seen his problem and any 
> suggestions are welcome.
>
> (latest version and previous versions)
>
> If I build a main NAT rule to translate a port (80) to an unprivlidged 
> port (8080) and keep all addresses "origional", the compiler creates a 
> wrong iptables command. If I then add the origional destination 
> address to the rule (which shouldn't be needed), the iptables command 
> is created correctly, but, of course, a virtual interface is created 
> (if the dialog box for create virtual interfaces is used).
>
> I really don't want to static arp addesses for other DMZ's so I use 
> the virtual interface option.
>
> Right now I compile with the rule as it should be constructed: source 
> "any" destination "myserver" origional srv "http80" xlate src 
> "origional" xlate dest "origional" xlate srv "http8080". After 
> compiling, I manually edit the generated install file (to correct the 
> nat statement for this rule) and then install.
>
> My question is can fwbuilder create a rule to translate only the 
> destination port an leave all ip addresses origional. This seems to be 
> a bug.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Jon Jacobsen
> jja...@ml...
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
> Fwb...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion