Chris,

what do you mean by "NAT port bouncing" ?

Beside that, I cannot agree with the rest of your statement.
I know quite few guys running m0n0wall professionally and not only for the captive-portal.
Ask Manuel, he can for sure give you some references.

Although I do not program for m0n0wall I can fully understand that not every need/wish can be
fulfilled.
On one hand it has been deliberately chosen not to fork between embedded and PC, although the
requirements are different.
On the other hand it is a community based development so believe me if a feature is requested by the
mass it will also probably be implemented.
Of course I'm talking about firewall features and not services like print-server, anti-virus,
proxy/cache which are not directly firewall related.

Daniele

Chris Dickens wrote:
> I asked for NAT port bouncing years ago and m0n0wall still can't do
> that.  Heck, I offered money for someone to fix the problem - offer
> since withdrawn because there's apparently a lot of resistence in this
> crowd to making any change to Monowall.
> 
> Lacking this ability which is available in virtually every other
> appliance I've ever seen pretty much makes it useless for a datacenter
> class firewall solution.  Thankfully I've managed to put in enough
> work-arounds that it's not causing me much trouble in my setup with
> multiple virtual servers.  You may find that if m0n0wall doesn't suite
> you as it is, Tonino, then you'd be better to move along.  From what I
> can tell, everyone here uses m0n0 for the captive portal with WiFi
> hotspots and is raking in money selling it to whoever will pay them to
> put them in.  Nobody doing anything really serious.
> 
> I stay subscribed to the mailing list, hoping that one day someone will
> find a real solution and I can be off of version 1.0.
> 
> *Sigh* (Bracing for impact of flames coming in very soon)
> 
> --Chris

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailGate, and is
believed to be clean.