[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Peter Allgeyer <allgeyer at web dot de>
 To:  m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall-dev] Server NAT really needed?
 Date:  Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:20:06 +0200
Hi Chris!

Am Mittwoch, den 27.04.2005, 12:39 -0400 schrieb Chris Buechler:
> Because the IP's you add in the Server NAT tab are then made available
> in the Inbound NAT rules drop down box.  You could do it all in the
I saw this, yes.

> Inbound NAT tab by replacing the drop down box with a text box, but
> I'd say that greatly increases your chances of mistakes there.  There
What mistakes do you mean? The problem in my eyes is, that the term
"Server NAT" is more confusing than it helps. I can't think of any
firewall that has a "feature" like this.

> also might be a reason on the back end that it's done that way.
Can't see anything like this in the code. I think it's only designed as
is, with no special thinking about it. But only Manuel can tell ...

Ciao ...
	... PIT ...

 copyleft(c) by |           Besides, REAL computers have a rename()
 Peter Allgeyer |   _-_     system call. :-)  -- Larry Wall in
                | 0(o_o)0   <7937 at jpl dash devvax dot JPL dot NASA dot GOV>