[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Chris Buechler <cbuechler at gmail dot com>
 Cc:  m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall-dev] Server NAT really needed?
 Date:  Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:02:45 -0400
On 4/27/05, Peter Allgeyer <allgeyer at web dot de> wrote:
> 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? 

Typos (mostly eliminated with input validation, but still...), or
using IP's that you shouldn't.  I dunno, it just seems cleaner as

> 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.

It's actually PAT, which most every firewall has, just in different ways.