|
||||||||||
You could add a Firewall rule for both networks. Then you would still only have to change the NAT rule. If your networks are somewhat close, eg. 192.168.1.0/24 and 192.168.4.0/24 you could just change the firewall rule to be 192.168.0.0/16. -Ryan * David Kitchens <spider at webweaver dot com> [2007-01-05 01:51:57]: > I admit I hadn't thought of that! The only problem I have with it is that my > server is on a VLAN different than my workstation so I will have to continue > to edit both rules. :( I think I may have to upgrade to a 4801 since the gui > performance is much slower now but on 1.3b2 I get faster thruput so I can > wait for gui issues, lol. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ryan Mullins [mailto:rmullins at ciscomonkey dot net] > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:37 PM > > To: David Kitchens > > Cc: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch > > Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Feature Request > > > > I do this same situation a lot. What I've done is just > > change the firewall rule to allow > > 3389 to my network (eg. 192.168.1.0/24) instead of just the > > host. That way I only have to change the NAT rule to point > > to the other server address. > > > > -Ryan > > > > * David Kitchens <spider at webweaver dot com> [2007-01-04 18:32:12]: > > > > > Point taken, I hadn't thought of tweaking just the firewall > > rule but > > > in most cases I have ran into, the two rules are meant to > > be together. > > > All I was hoping for was a checkbox option like we have on the NAT > > > page that would update the other rule if the user wanted to. It > > > doesn't have to be a mandatory thing, but most of the time I have > > > needed to edit both. Example for my situation is port 3389, > > 99% of the > > > time, I have it set to my workstation so I can get to it remotely, > > > here and there I need to let someone use Terminal Services > > to get to > > > my W2K3 server and I have to change the rules. I am not a > > programmer > > > so I didn't know if this could be done but figured I would throw it > > > out to the list and see. Having a drop menu for aliases > > seems like it > > > should be fairly simple, that's more cosmetic than anything else. > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Neil A. Hillard [mailto:m0n0 at dana dot org dot uk] > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:41 PM > > > > To: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch > > > > Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Feature Request > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > In message <459D622B dot 6090906 at gmx dot de>, Carsten Holbach > > > > <Carsten dot Holbach at gmx dot de> writes > > > > >I support this feature request! > > > > > > > > > >David Kitchens schrieb: > > > > >> While I love the "Auto-add a firewall rule" option in NAT, > > > > I find it > > > > >>odd that when I want to edit a NAT rule, this feature is > > > > not there. > > > > >>It seems like it should be able to change to "Update > > the firewall > > > > >>rule" when you Edit a NAT setting. Currently, if I want to > > > > edit a NAT > > > > >>rule, I also have to edit the firewall rule. Would this be > > > > possible to do? > > > > >> Second thought, since we have the blue fields for Aliases, > > > > >>could the fields be drop down lists of available aliases? Not a > > > > major issue > > > > >>but a thought since I am editing rules right at the moment. > > > > >> Also, a quick report on a production Net 4511 > > upgrade to 1.3b2: > > > > >> Upgrade was painless, everything worked that I use. Web and > > > > >>mail services working to two servers, VLANs working, VPN's to > > > > >>several clients work fine, (all connected to M0n0wall > > 1.22). My > > > > >>mini-pci wireless B is more stable now than it was > > under 4.11, it > > > > used to stop > > > > >>working now and then.. The webgui is slightly slower than > > > > it was but > > > > >>a 4511 is only a 133mhz so I expected that and can > > deal with it. > > > > >>Overall, a fine piece of work and a painless upgrade as usual > > > > >>with M0n0wall! > > > > > > > > I can see how it could be useful but I don't think it is > > that easy > > > > to implement. The two tables are completely separate so > > some form > > > > of link between the two would need to be maintained. > > > > > > > > What happens when you've 'tweaked' the firewall rule? Would the > > > > link be severed or would the NAT rule update overwrite > > the firewall > > > > rule changes? > > > > > > > > When adding a rule it's a bit of a no-brainer but > > maintaining from > > > > then on wouldn't be particularly easy... unless I've missed > > > > something obvious! > > > > > > > > My 2p worth! > > > > > > > > ATB, > > > > > > > > > > > > Neil. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Neil A. Hillard E-Mail: m0n0 at dana dot org dot uk > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch > > > For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch > For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch |