firewall with 2 ports and mask only one of the two, possible ?
Hi, I can´t find the solution for the following problem: Net 1 (10.1.0.0) | firewall / \ internet <-> ippp0 isdn0 | | internet <-> ippp0 isdn0 \ / firewall | Net 2 (10.2.0.0) I use SuSe 7.0 and the firewall should masquerade on ippp0 (for some systems) but not on isdn0. I need to allow samba on isdn0 with a list of systems between Net1 and Net2. Can this be done with kernel 2.2.16 ? Thanks J. Schläger
Hi, I think you should take a look at the tool iproute2. rgrds, Bráulio Gergull
I can´t find the solution for the following problem: Net 1 (10.1.0.0) | firewall / \ internet <-> ippp0 isdn0 | | internet <-> ippp0 isdn0 \ / firewall | Net 2 (10.2.0.0)
I use SuSe 7.0 and the firewall should masquerade on ippp0 (for some systems) but not on isdn0.
I need to allow samba on isdn0 with a list of systems between Net1 and Net2.
Can this be done with kernel 2.2.16 ?
On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Bráulio Gergull wrote:
I think you should take a look at the tool iproute2. This is not necessary, ipchains should be enough
I use SuSe 7.0 and the firewall should masquerade on ippp0 (for some systems) ipchains -A forward -s somesystem1 -i ippp0 -j MASQ ipchains -A forward -s somesystem2 -i ippp0 -j MASQ ipchains -A forward -s somesubnet1/28 -ippp0 -j MASQ but not on isdn0. you must define the masquerading interface, so this is done automagically :) I need to allow samba on isdn0 with a list of systems between Net1 and Net2. you should run samba as WINS server and the firewall as IP-Adress at the Clients. However, I am running a subnetted Environment at home without WINS server (but samba running on "firewall" and it works ... Can this be done with kernel 2.2.16 ? yes (though you should use 2.2.18 if you don't mind self-compiling.
... which reminds me of a question I wanted to ask the list: do you use SuSE Kernels or do you self-compile? Why? I think it's safer (more up-todate, openwall patch, etc.) to self compile. I also don't know which patches have been done by SuSE to improve the Kernel (don't need LVM, so never cared about their kernels). And finally the last "modules" bug didn't cause me any trouble ;-) bye Markus -- _____________________________ /"\ Markus Gaugusch ICQ 11374583 \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign markus@gaugusch.dhs.org X Against HTML Mail / \ 40
On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 06:00:05 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
... which reminds me of a question I wanted to ask the list: do you use SuSE Kernels or do you self-compile? Why? I think it's safer (more
I prefer self-compile when time permits it :-) I have some machines with customized (self-compiled) kernels and others with original SuSE kernel. Reasons for self-compile: you can optimize performance a bit and keep the system up2date (patching to newer kernel versions). Anyway original SuSE kernels works fine and they are quite stable and have a lot of funcionality. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ** RoMaN SoFt / LLFB ** roman@madrid.com http://pagina.de/romansoft ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
participants (4)
-
Br�ulio Gergull -
Dipl. Phys. J�rg Schl�ger -
Markus Gaugusch -
RoMaN SoFt / LLFB!!