On 10.03.2004 10:24 -0800, Sharif Nassar wrote:

> Instead, we'll all just have to deal with "Manuel NAT" .
> 
> ha!

:) Well listen folks, if you think you can come up with a better way
to label and organize all that NAT-related stuff, then for gods sake
do it! Otherwise, cut out the moaning, please.


On 10.03.2004 09:09 -0800, Michael A. Alderete wrote:

> Perhaps a better UI would be to change the entire last panel
> (currently "Outbound") to "Manual NAT", and change the initial
> checkbox to a radio button with two choices:

...which might just as well add to the confusion because the changes
on that page only influence outgoing connections (ipnat map rules),
while inbound and server NAT only deal with incoming connections
(ipnat rdr rules). 1:1 rules apply to both directions (ipnat bimap
rules). You can't really turn off ipnat - you can only remove all the
rules...

> I'm sure there's other UI improvements that could be made in the NAT
> sections, but since I don't know what most of the stuff is for

Maybe you should think twice before criticizing then...

> (Inbound and 1:1 I get, the rest seems like it's mostly duplicative
> of those two), I can't make further suggestions...

You know, Outbound and Server NAT are just there to confuse the users
- they serve no real purpose.

;))

- Manuel