Re: hosts.(allow|deny) [non-NAT routing]
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 03:55:12PM -0600, Will Trillich wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 08:01:14PM +0000, Hugh Saunders wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 09:43:34AM -0800, nate wrote:
> > > Hugh Saunders said:
> > > another reason I don't use it is I prefer firewalls over it.
> > Hmmm i guess iptables would be better but i dont speak iptables yet and
> > hosts seemed like a quick fix and as with most quik fixes, it probably
> > isnt the best way of doing things.
>
> i predict you'll be delighted at how many things are solved by
> just doing this:
>
> apt-get install ipmasq
did that a while ago but doesnt mean i understand!
I have this script that is run by init:
#!/bin/sh
iptables -t nat -F POSTROUTING
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wlan0 -j MASQUERADE
echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
this was written at the pub during a surreyLUG meeting by a very
helpfull chap. It certainly does the job [ie anything on the wlan0 side
of things can communicate with anything on the wired net eth0 is on].
How do i route without NATing? so that the sending ip address is not
mangled by the router?
thanks
hugh
Reply to: