Search Results

Search found 1275 results on 51 pages for 'nat weiss'.

Page 7/51 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • How do you implement NAT-T passthrough on a Juniper SRX series Firewall?

    - by Chris
    We have 3 juniper SRX-100 firewalls, they are configured like so: FW1 - FW2 - INTERNET - FW3 We would like to create an IPSEC tunnel between FW3 and FW1 passing through FW2 preferably using NAT-T. Is this possible? FW1 and FW2 have some strict access rules only allowing 1 port connected (it's a DMZ with a server in) so we can't just create a route based vpn between FW1 and FW2 to forward the traffic (otherwise all traffic will be forwarded) We know the tunnel is fine because we have managed to test it between FW1 and FW3 (without FW2 in the middle) so we know that the issue is to do with the 'passthrough' on FW2. Essentially, the question is - What options do we need to select on FW2 to enable it to pass through the IPSEC traffic straight to FW1? Many thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • NAT and ISP Subnet when load balancing on pfsense?

    - by dannymcc
    I have a pfsense box that I'm trying to plan the configuration for. I am going to be load balancing two ISP's, each with their own /29 static IP subnet. The question I have is in relation to the way those IP's are associated with workstations on the local network. Currently I have some workstations with local (192.168.1.0/29) IP addresses, and other more complicated workstation setups have their own public IP address. Some of the more complicated systems have a NAT 1:1 configuration where I forward a public IP address to a local IP address. Others however are directly on the ISP subnet and cannot be seen on our local network. Is this configuration possible with pfsense? If so, what terms should I be looking through the documentation for? Here is a simple/brief diagram of what I am trying to achieve.

    Read the article

  • Attempting to caue packet loss with netem doesn't work - possibly because of NAT (but delay does work)

    - by tomdee
    I have traffic from a WIFI access point routed via an Ubuntu box. I have two network interfaces which are NATed *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [11:690] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [37:6224] -A FORWARD -s 192.168.2.0/24 -i eth1 -o eth0 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -m conntrack --ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT COMMIT # Completed on Thu Mar 15 13:37:21 2012 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.10 on Thu Mar 15 13:37:21 2012 *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE COMMIT If I run a ping app on an Android device connected to the WIFI network I can happily ping google. If I use netem to introduce some delay tc qdisc change dev eth0 root netem delay 100ms I can clearly see pings taking longer. If I use netem to introduce some packet loss tc qdisc change dev ifb0 root netem loss 50% then I see no change. Packet loss does work fine for locally generated traffic, just not for traffic coming in over the network that's being NATed. Any ideas how to sort this out?

    Read the article

  • How can I measure TCP timeout limit on NAT firewall for setting keepalive interval?

    - by jmanning2k
    A new (NAT) firewall appliance was recently installed at $WORK. Since then, I'm getting many network timeouts and interruptions, especially for operations which would require the server to think for a bit without a response (svn update, rsync, etc.). Inbound SSH sessions over VPN also timeout frequently. That clearly suggests I need to adjust the TCP (and ssh) keepalive time on the servers in question in order to reduce these errors. But what is the appropriate value I should use? Assuming I have machines on both sides of the firewall between which I can make a connection, is there a way to measure what the time limit on TCP connections might be for this firewall? In theory, I would send a packet with gradually increasing intervals until the connection is lost. Any tools that might help (free or open source would be best, but I'm open to other suggestions)? The appliance is not under my control, so I can't just get the value, though I am attempting to ask what it currently is and if I can get it increased.

    Read the article

  • Frequent connection drops when playing online games (StarCraft 2, Battlefield 3) and behind NAT - how to diagnose? [migrated]

    - by Moshev
    I am having some trouble with (I suspect) my wireless router. It's connected to the internet with a regular lan cable and has a static, public IP address. Our two home PCs connect to the router with regular lan cables, plus there's a laptop which connects over wifi. diagram: Internet | | <- isp-supplied cat5 ethernet cable | D-Link D300 ...wifi... laptop / \ / <- cable -> \ PC1 PC2 The PCs and laptop are behind NAT and share the router's public IP. The router is a D-Link D300. PC1 is used for online gaming and I'm experiencing frequent "connection dropped" errors when playing Battlefield 3, StarCraft 2 and the Diablo 3 beta; but not with TeamFortress 2 or the Tribes Ascend beta. The issue goes away when I remove the router and connect PC1 directly to the ISP's cable. I have also tried disconnecting PC2 and the laptop, leaving PC1 as the only machine connected to the router - doesn't help. How can I diagnose what precisely the issue is?

    Read the article

  • Frequent connection drops when playing online games (StarCraft 2, Battlefield 3) and behind NAT - how to diagnose?

    - by Moshev
    I am having some trouble with (I suspect) my wireless router. It's connected to the internet with a regular lan cable and has a static, public IP address. Our two home PCs connect to the router with regular lan cables, plus there's a laptop which connects over wifi. diagram: Internet | | <- isp-supplied cat5 ethernet cable | D-Link D300 ...wifi... laptop / \ / <- cable -> \ PC1 PC2 The PCs and laptop are behind NAT and share the router's public IP. The router is a D-Link D300. PC1 is used for online gaming and I'm experiencing frequent "connection dropped" errors when playing Battlefield 3, StarCraft 2 and the Diablo 3 beta; but not with TeamFortress 2 or the Tribes Ascend beta. The issue goes away when I remove the router and connect PC1 directly to the ISP's cable. I have also tried disconnecting PC2 and the laptop, leaving PC1 as the only machine connected to the router - doesn't help. How can I diagnose what precisely the issue is?

    Read the article

  • Does anyone know of a inexpensive NAT router that has the ability to limit access to the Internet to

    - by Corey
    Does anyone know of a inexpensive NAT router that has the ability to limit access to the Internet to a specific MAC address? I know the Linksys routers have a MAC filtering feature, but it is the opposite of what I need. It allows you to block access to a specific MAC address. I need something that will block all, but allow an exception. I'm dealing with some VOIP issues in my company's network, and I think the answer is to have a separate router on the network for my PBX to use. I want to make sure that other nodes are not allowed to access the Internet via this second router.

    Read the article

  • Keep source IP after NAT

    - by John Miller
    Until today I used a cheapy router so I can share my internet connection and keep a webserver online too, while using NAT. Users IP ($_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR']) was fine, I was seeing class A IPs of users. But as traffic grown up everyday, I had to install a Linux Server (Debian) to share my Internet Connection, because my old router couldn't keep the traffic anymore. I shared the internet via IPTABLES using NAT, but now, after forwarding port 80 to my webserver, now instead of seeing real users IP, I see my Gateway IP (Linux Internal IP) as any user IP Address. How to solve this issue? I edited my post, so I can paste the rules I'm currently using. #!/bin/sh #I made a script to set the rules #I flush everything here. iptables --flush iptables --table nat --flush iptables --delete-chain iptables --table nat --delete-chain iptables -F iptables -X # I drop everything as a general rule, but this is disabled under testing # iptables -P INPUT DROP # iptables -P OUTPUT DROP # these are the loopback rules iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o lo -j ACCEPT # here I set the SSH port rules, so I can connect to my server iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --sport 513:65535 --dport 22 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp --sport 22 --dport 513:65535 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # These are the forwards for 80 port iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -s 0/0 -d xx.xx.xx.xx --dport 80 -j DNAT --to 192.168.42.3:80 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -d xx.xx.xx.xx -j SNAT --to-source 192.168.42.3 iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp -s 192.168.42.3 --sport 80 -j ACCEPT # These are the forwards for bind/dns iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp -s 0/0 -d xx.xx.xx.xx --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 192.168.42.3:53 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -d xx.xx.xx.xx -j SNAT --to-source 192.168.42.3 iptables -A FORWARD -p udp -s 192.168.42.3 --sport 53 -j ACCEPT # And these are the rules so I can share my internet connection iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0:1 -j ACCEPT If I delete the MASQUERADE part, I see my real IP while echoing it with PHP, but I don't have internet. How to do, to have internet and see my real IP while ports are forwarded too? ** xx.xx.xx.xx - is my public IP. I hid it for security reasons.

    Read the article

  • Can I setup NAT for the same service, two public IPs on different routers to the same private IP?

    - by James
    This might be needlessly complex, but here goes. I've got two Firebox x550e devices. The first has a local IP of 10.0.0.1, public IP 64.x.x.x. The second has a local IP of 10.0.0.10, public IP 70.x.x.x. There is an FTP server on our LAN with a private IP of 10.0.0.55. I've set up NAT rules in each of the Fireboxes, on the first firebox it is 64.x.x.x-10.0.0.55 tcp 21, on the second 70.x.x.x-10.0.0.55 tcp 21. The first rule works fine. I can ftp to 64.x.x.x and everything's good. The second rule doesn't work. ftp to 70.x.x.x results in a connection timeout. The second firebox logs say the connection is being allowed through. The default gateway on the FTP server is 10.0.0.1 (the first firebox) If I change the default gateway on the server to 10.0.0.10, the rule on the second firebox starts working, but the rule from the first firebox stops. Is there some way to make this work for both rules?

    Read the article

  • Using a nat rule to translate 80/443 traffic to web server, but internal users cannot access it using external ip/domain name

    - by Josh
    I am using Cisco ASDM for ASA I have my internal network called soa. My outside interface is called outside. Let's say my outside IP given to me by my ISP isp is y.y.y.y I have a web server inside my network with a static ip of x.x.x.110. I have configured 2 static nat rules (one for http the other for https). Source is x.x.x.110. Interface is outside, service (http or https). Maybe I am doing this wrong, but when I run the packet tracer, I choose outside interface and for the source IP I used 8.8.8.8 and the destination ip is my outside IP address, y.y.y.y When I run that, it shows the packet traversing successfully, using 9 steps. For my other test, I switch to the soa interface, input an ip on that network, and leave the destination the same. This test comes up with 2 steps and then fails on my access list. When I see the rule that fails, it is my catch all which is source: any desitnation: any, service: ip action: deny. What rule do I need to make to allow my soa network access to go out and come back in by my external IP addess (using a domain name attached to that ip in my dns, of course)?

    Read the article

  • C# TCP Hole Punch (NAT Traversal) Library or something?

    - by user293531
    I want to do TCP Hole Punching (NAT Traversal) in C#. It can be done with a rendevouzs server if needed. I found http://sharpstunt.codeplex.com/ but can not get this to work. Ideally i need some method which i give a PortNumber (int) as parameter that after a call to this method is available ("Port Forwarded") at the NAT. It would be also ok if the methode just returns some port number which is then available at the NAT. Has anybody done this in C# ? Can you give me working examples for sharpstunt or something else? Thank you

    Read the article

  • How do I make a TCP server work behind a router (NAT) without any redirection configuration needed.

    - by Chetane
    The scenario is the following. I have two machines A and B: A: Client (behind NAT) B: Server (behind NAT) I want B to be able to listen on any given port, so that A can send packets to B through that specific TCP port and receive any response. If both machines are not behind a NAT it is pretty straight foward process. However how do I make it work so that it works even when B is behind a router, without him having to go change the router configuration enable some port forwarding etc... For example, how do p2p program like torrent clients work without the user having anything to configure? Thanks and I hope my question is clear enough.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to setup a DHCP server only for local virtual machines?

    - by thiesdiggity
    I have a quick question. I have a bunch of virtual machines (VMWare Workstation) running on an Ubuntu server and have found that VMWare NAT (DHCP) service is unreliable and slow. I have to use NAT instead of bridging because the server is in a data-center that does not have DHCP and I don't have enough static IP's for all the VMs. Is it possible to setup the host (Ubuntu) to be a DHCP server but only for the local virtual machines? The server has 2 network interfaces, so I'd set eth0 to be a static IP, which connects to the outside world, and eth1 to listen for DHCP. Now, I am thinking if I don't want DHCP to broadcast I would just not connect a cable to eth1 and setup the VM's to use bridging on eth1. That way DHCP would not broadcast through my network but be listening on that interface. Would that setup work?

    Read the article

  • Some HTTPS connections via NAT fail, but work on firewall itself.

    - by hnxn
    Hi, I am having trouble establishing some HTTPS connections from internal machines, even though these same connections work if initiated on the firewall itself. The firewall machine is running Ubuntu 10.04.1 and shorewall 4.4.6. The internet connection is Bell PPPoE DSL (in Canada). I have tried various MTU settings, it doesn't seem to make any difference. Other protocols (HTTP, FTP, etc) generally work. The problem seems to be limited to certain sites; this one never works from an internal machine, but always works from the firewall itself: From internal machine: $ wget https://images.fedex.com/images/ascend/shared/headers/nxgen/corp_logo.gif --2011-01-13 20:51:31-- https://images.fedex.com/images/ascend/shared/headers/nxgen/corp_logo.gif Resolving images.fedex.com... 184.24.96.69 Connecting to images.fedex.com|184.24.96.69|:443... connected. ^C From firewall: $ wget https://images.fedex.com/images/ascend/shared/headers/nxgen/corp_logo.gif --2011-01-13 20:58:28-- https://images.fedex.com/images/ascend/shared/headers/nxgen/corp_logo.gif Resolving images.fedex.com... 184.24.96.69 Connecting to images.fedex.com|184.24.96.69|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 840 [image/gif] Saving to: `corp_logo.gif' 2011-01-13 20:58:28 (149 MB/s) - `corp_logo.gif' saved [840/840] This URL always works from both internal and firewall: https://encrypted.google.com/images/logos/ssl_logo_lg.gif Any troubleshooting tips would be greatly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • OpenBSD ftp-proxy behind NAT itself

    - by Manuel Faux
    Is it possible to change the PASV IP ftp-proxy of OpenBSD sends to clients, without changing the listen address of redirection control (-b <address>)? I have the following setup: FTP client --> 1:1 NAT router --> OpenBSD router --> FTP server The 1:1 NAT router has a NAT rule to forward everything to the OpenBSD router, the OpenBSD router runs the ftp-proxy -R <FTP server IP>. When the FTP client sends the PASV command, the proxy answers with the Entering Passive Mode (227) message with his own source IP on the interface to the 1:1 NAT router (obviously). Since the 1:1 NAT router is not protocol aware, it forwards this message and the client receives the message with the PASV IP of the OpenBSD router, which it does not have a route to. Is there a way, that I can tell ftp-proxy to send the Entering Passive Mode message with a different source IP?

    Read the article

  • Question Virtual Network and NAT set-up

    - by Jay
    Hi Guys! I need some help. I'm completely new to Linux. I'm trying to set up the following scenario: +-----+eth0 +-----+ +---+ | VM2 |-----------| VM1 |---------------| H | +-----+ eth1 +-----+eth0 (NAT) +---+ VM2 - Virtual machine from Virtual Box, using Ubuntu VM1 - Virtual machine from Virtual Box, using Ubuntu: I want this to act as a NAT. H - Host, my Windows Vista The dots were just added since after saving the spaces disappear. So if I ping H from VM2, H would receive a different IP address from VM2. Could you give me a step by step on this? All machines are of course 32 bit. Thanks. Would appreciate the help so much.

    Read the article

  • Matthias Weiss: Virtualisierung - auf allen Ebenen. Da ist Potential im Mittelstand.

    - by A&C Redaktion
    Vom Storage, über den Server bis hin zum Desktop. Virtualisierung ist nur eine Technologie, intelligent die Ressourcen zu managen. Es ist gerade das Potenzial der Kostenersparnis, so Matthias Weiss, Direktor Mittelstand Technologie, das gerade bei mittelständischen Unternehmen Virtualisierung so begehrt macht. Es gibt heute bereits Virtualisierungslösungen von Oracle, die neue Chancen zur Umsatzsteigerung für Beratungsleistungen ermöglichen.  Wie sich die langfristige IT-Strategie bei mittelständischen Unternehmen durch Partner positiv beeinflussen lässt? Eine Frage, auf die Matthias Weiss auch eine Antwort im folgenden Video bereit hält.

    Read the article

  • Address (url) forwarding with Vyatta

    - by Trikks
    Hi Got this kind of noob question i suppose. I got this very basic network setup and need help to set up some address forwarding. As seen in my illustration below all traffic enters via the eth0 interface (85.123.32.23). The external dns is setup to direct all hosts to this ip as well. Now, how on earth do I filter the incoming requests to each box? The Ip's are static! Se the network layout here: http://vyatta.org/files/u11160/setup.png I do not wish to solve this by assigning tons of ports etc. In my wishful thinking something like this would be nice :) set service nat rule 10 type destination set service nat rule 10 inbound-interface eth0 set service nat rule 10 destination address ftp.myhost.com set service nat rule 10 inside-address address 192.168.100.20 This way ALL traffic to the address ftp.myhost.com (at eth0) should be routed to the internal ip, 192.168.100.20. Right, is there anyone who could point in some direction? Maybe it's wrong to use nat? Please help me! :)

    Read the article

  • Address (url) forwarding with Vyatta

    - by Trikks
    Got this kind of noob question i suppose. I got this very basic network setup and need help to set up some address forwarding. As seen in my illustration below all traffic enters via the eth0 interface (85.123.32.23). The external dns is setup to direct all hosts to this ip as well. Now, how on earth do I filter the incoming requests to each box? The Ip's are static! My network layout: I do not wish to solve this by assigning tons of ports etc. In my wishful thinking something like this would be nice :) set service nat rule 10 type destination set service nat rule 10 inbound-interface eth0 set service nat rule 10 destination address ftp.myhost.com set service nat rule 10 inside-address address 192.168.100.20 This way ALL traffic to the address ftp.myhost.com (at eth0) should be routed to the internal ip, 192.168.100.20. Right, is there anyone who could point in some direction? Maybe it's wrong to use nat? Please help me! :)

    Read the article

  • forward ssh ports on EC2

    - by Will Glass
    I have an SSH server on a private subnet within an EC2 vpc listening for ssh on port 9022 I also have a nat instance (standard Amazon EC2 nat) on a public instance. I would like to forward incoming SSH connections (port 9022) to my nat to the internal server (port 9022). I tried this, but it didn't work: sudo iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -p tcp -i eth0 --dport 9022 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.0.2.11:9022 I verified that 10.0.2.11 is listening on port 9022. (I can telnet). I verified my security group allows incoming port 9022. I verified that /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward is 1. What am I missing? Edit: Turns out this was correct after all. I had a mistake in my security group.

    Read the article

  • Port translation in router causing some email to fail

    - by user22037
    We are in the process of setting up a spam filter (SAVASM). One change we are making is to push incoming email on port 25 through our spam filter/server but have users actually send their email on a different port. I am attempting to make this happen by using port address translation to send port 25 traffic to the SAVASM server IP. As a step in making this change I setup port translation without actually changing the IP addresses. The NAT rules for the email server went from one Static NAT rule with no port specified, to multiple Static NAT rules each with a port or group matching the Access Rules for that server (smtp, pop3, http, https, and some other custom ports). The problem we are running into is confusing. Some outgoing mail through this server is failing when the router has the multiple NAT rules with port translation settings. Email goes through fine FROM our email to our internal accounts and to Gmail. However email fails when FROM our client's email address TO our client's email or their personal Comcast. The only situation that worked for them was if they changed FROM to Comcast and then messages went through fine to both Comcast and the client's accounts. Switching back to regular Static NAT rule everything then worked for them. Does anyone have a clue as to what might be going on? We are on a Cisco ASA 5500 box.

    Read the article

  • Issues with forwarding Iptables

    - by Ricardo Rios
    I have some issues with my redirectioning lines on iptables, it seems it does not work, any help will be appreciated iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.2.0/24 -o eth0 -j SNAT --to 10.10.10.1 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to 10.10.10.1:8080 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-port 8080 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 200.59.189.125 -p tcp --dport 8081 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.51:8081 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 200.59.189.125 -p tcp --dport 34551 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.51:8081 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 200.59.189.125 -p tcp --dport 8082 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.52:8082 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 200.59.189.125 -p tcp --dport 34552 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.52:8082 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 200.59.189.125 -p tcp --dport 8083 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.53:8083 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 200.59.189.125 -p tcp --dport 34553 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.53:8083 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 200.59.189.125 -p tcp --dport 8084 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.54:8084 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 200.59.189.125 -p tcp --dport 34554 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.54:8084 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 200.59.189.125 -p tcp --dport 8085 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.55:8085 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 200.59.189.125 -p tcp --dport 34555 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.55:80 echo Ejecutadas Reglas del Firewall

    Read the article

  • svn connection timeout

    - by Tom celic
    I have Ubuntu 12.04 running in virtual box inside Windows 7. I have the network adapter set as NAT and everything networking wise seems to be running smoothly (internet / git ect.). However, for some reason, svn always times out when i.e michael@michael-VirtualBox:~/Documents/deleteme$ svn co svn://svn.openwrt.org/openwrt/trunk/ svn: Can't connect to host 'svn.openwrt.org': Connection timed out Somebody suggested to me that I might need to change what ports svn uses. Does anybody have any idea how to diagnose / solve the problem? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • AJI Report with Nat Ryan&ndash;Discussion about Game Development with Corona Labs SDK

    - by Jeff Julian
    We sat down with Nat Ryan of Fully Croisened to talk about Game Development and the Corona Labs framework. The Corona SDK is a platform that allows you to write mobile games or applications using the Lua language and deploy to the iOS and Android platforms. One of the great features of Corona is the compilation output is a native application and not a hybrid application. Corona is very centered around their developer community and there are quite a few local meetups focused on the helping other developers use the platform. The community and Corona site offers a great number of resources and samples that will help you get started in a matter of a few days. If you are into Game Development and want to move towards mobile, or a business developer looking to turn your craft back into a hobby, check out this recording and Corona Labs to get started.   Download the Podcast   Site: AJI Report – @AJISoftware Site: Fully Croisened Twitter: @FullyCroisened Site: Corona Labs

    Read the article

  • Why won't vyatta allow SMTP through my firewall?

    - by Solignis
    I am setting up a vyatta router on VMware ESXi, But I see to have hit a major snag, I could not get my firewall and NAT to work correctly. I am not sure what was wrong with NAT but it "seems" to be working now. But the firewall is not allowing traffic from my WAN interface (eth0) to my LAN (eth1). I can confirm its the firewall because I disabled all firewall rules and everything worked with just NAT. If put the firewalls (WAN and LAN) back in place nothing can get through to port 25. I am not really sure what the issue could be I am using pretty basic firewall rules, I wrote the rules while looking at the vyatta docs so unless there is something odd with the documentation they "should" be working. Here is my NAT rules so far; vyatta@gateway# show service nat rule 20 { description "Zimbra SNAT #1" outbound-interface eth0 outside-address { address 74.XXX.XXX.XXX } source { address 10.0.0.17 } type source } rule 21 { description "Zimbra SMTP #1" destination { address 74.XXX.XXX.XXX port 25 } inbound-interface eth0 inside-address { address 10.0.0.17 } protocol tcp type destination } rule 100 { description "Default LAN -> WAN" outbound-interface eth0 outside-address { address 74.XXX.XXX.XXX } source { address 10.0.0.0/24 } type source } Then here is my firewall rules, this is where I believe the problem is. vyatta@gateway# show firewall all-ping enable broadcast-ping disable conntrack-expect-table-size 4096 conntrack-hash-size 4096 conntrack-table-size 32768 conntrack-tcp-loose enable ipv6-receive-redirects disable ipv6-src-route disable ip-src-route disable log-martians enable name LAN_in { rule 100 { action accept description "Default LAN -> any" protocol all source { address 10.0.0.0/24 } } } name LAN_out { } name LOCAL { rule 100 { action accept state { established enable } } } name WAN_in { rule 20 { action accept description "Allow SMTP connections to MX01" destination { address 74.XXX.XXX.XXX port 25 } protocol tcp } rule 100 { action accept description "Allow established connections back through" state { established enable } } } name WAN_out { } receive-redirects disable send-redirects enable source-validation disable syn-cookies enable SIDENOTE To test for open ports I have using this website, http://www.yougetsignal.com/tools/open-ports/, it showed port 25 as open without the firewall rules and closed with the firewall rules. UPDATE Just to see if the firewall was working properly I made a rule to block SSH from the WAN interface. When I checked for port 22 on my primary WAN address it said it was still open even though I outright blocked the port. Here is the rule I used; rule 21 { action reject destination { address 74.219.80.163 port 22 } protocol tcp } So now I am convinced either I am doing something wrong or the firewall is not working like it should.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >