[ 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:  Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:30:38 +0200
Hi Chris!

Am Mittwoch, den 27.04.2005, 17:02 -0400 schrieb Chris Buechler:
> Typos (mostly eliminated with input validation, but still...), or
> using IP's that you shouldn't.  I dunno, it just seems cleaner as
> is...
Typos should be checked with input validation, you said it.

> It's actually PAT, which most every firewall has, just in different ways.  
I called it port forwarding. Another term for the same thing. I've never
heard of "Server NAT", do you? No, it's nothing more than confusing to
me. Moreover when I see, that on the page called "Server NAT", one can
only type ip addresses in (and a more or less useful description for the
ip address). Yes, it would be nice, if I could define objects anywhere,
for using them later, but this should be global.

Ok. Don't split hairs! I'll stop this thread now. Was only a try to
think about making some things clearer.

Ciao ...
	... PIT ...

 copyleft(c) by |           signal(i, SIG_DFL); /* crunch, crunch, crunch
 Peter Allgeyer |   _-_     */  -- Larry Wall in doarg.c from the perl
                | 0(o_o)0   source code