Re: [Fwd: Re: NAT - port forwarding from the non-WAN subnet]

First of all, I want to thank everyone that responded to me.  I know
that I sometimes have trouble verbalizing how things are, even when I
have a clear diagram of it in my head.

The firewall behavior was not making sense to me, so last night I blew
away the configuration in m0n0wall and started over.  It's working now
just like I thought it should.

I think I did not completely understand what and how the options under
NAT worked and messed them up.  How ICMP worked but not TCP or UDP is
beyond me.  But I am not going to go back and try to re-create my
issues<GRIN>!

Thanks,
Lyle

Melvin wrote:
> David Burgess wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Lyle Giese<[email protected]> wrote:
>>  
>>> I keep hitting reply and it does not go to the list with Thunderbird..
>>>
>>> Sorry.
>>>     
>>
>>
>> That's how the list is set up. You have to hit reply-all, then
>> optionally delete the individual you are replying to.
>>
>> I think you need to set up a static route for your host machines. I'm
>> thinking if their routing table shows them on a public subnet with the
>> cisco as default gateway, then any packet destined to a private subnet
>> will not match any routes in the routing table and thus be routed to
>> that gateway. I'm surprised you can even ping the printers on m0n0's
>> LAN, unless you have added routes to your hosts manually to find
>> m0n0's LAN.
>>
>> Am I getting warm?
>>
>> db
>>
>>   
> I would think that if that were the cause of the problem they would also
> have to be there for the existing linux box to work.  Unless of course
> the interface IPs on the linux box don't match the ones on the m0n0
> setup.  Then any existing routes would stop working until they were
> adjusted.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>