[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Manuel Kasper <mk at neon1 dot net>
 To:  Peter Allgeyer <allgeyer at web dot de>
 Cc:  m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall-dev] Server NAT really needed?
 Date:  Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:37:29 +0200
Thanks for the patch, I guess I'll add the auto-add proxy ARP
modification to the next release. However, ...

On 28.4.2005 13:44 Uhr +0200, Peter Allgeyer wrote:

> Since I had some time, I've moved the "Server NAT" page down from
> the NAT page to "Edit Inbound NAT" page to bring together what

... I think having two separate tab views is even more confusing, so
I'd like to keep things the way they are now with respect to "Server
NAT". Besides, the DocBook explains how it works and finally the
webGUI can't replace proper education about NAT and networks in

> belongs to each other. I'm still not happy with the term "Server
> NAT" but don't want to confuse anybody who is used to it. Anyway,

Me neither, but it seems that nobody has been able to come up with a
better name for this concept. I think I stole the name from ZyXEL
(granted, they're not known to set standards in the firewall business

- Manuel