[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  "Martin Holst" <mail at martinh dot dk>
 To:  "Dinesh Nair" <dinesh at alphaque dot com>, "Manuel Kasper" <mk at neon1 dot net>
 Cc:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  SV: [m0n0wall] Re: Small bug: NAT rules with optional interfaces
 Date:  Tue, 11 May 2004 09:29:42 +0200
The drop down thing wasn't too well-considered. Should have realized that the standard NAT rules
don't contain interface adress.
Thanks for getting back though.
Dinesh: Thoug dual WAN w. load balancing has been brought up before, it definitely sounds
interesting ;o)


Fra: Dinesh Nair [mailto:dinesh at alphaque dot com]
Sendt: ti 11-05-2004 06:53
Til: Manuel Kasper
Cc: Martin Holst; m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
Emne: Re: [m0n0wall] Re: Small bug: NAT rules with optional interfaces

On Mon, 10 May 2004, Manuel Kasper wrote:

> also raise questions like what happens if you have two default gateways,
> and so on. So no, this is not going to happen.

i have the multipath routing patches to freebsd, which in conjuction with
BGP, would allow you to multihome a freebsd box. at the same time, i'm
investigating using ipnat to load balance outgoing/incoming traffic over
two DSL links. i know the discussion about whether m0n0wall is a router or
a firewall has been beaten to death here, but with the increasing
prolificness of DSL (and it's cheap cost), i would think that this will
soon become a requirement.

Regards,                           /\_/\   "All dogs go to heaven."
dinesh at alphaque dot com                (0 0)    http://www.alphaque.com/
| for a in past present future; do                                        |
|   for b in clients employers associates relatives neighbours pets; do   |
|   echo "The opinions here in no way reflect the opinions of my $a $b."  |
| done; done                                                              |