Subject: Re: Off-topic: Dumb IPNAT question
To: Takahiro Kambe <taca@sky.yamashina.kyoto.jp>
From: Paul Goyette <paul@whooppee.com>
List: current-users
Date: 06/15/1998 19:00:38
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Takahiro Kambe wrote:
> Based on /usr/share/examples/ipf/nat.eg as an example,
> ipnat.rules bellow works on FreeBSD with ip-filter (not firewall
> function with FreeBSD).
>
> map ed1 10.1.0.0/16 -> 240.1.0.1/32 proxy ftp ftp/tcp
> map ed1 10.1.0.0/16 -> 240.1.0.1/32 portmap tcp 10000:20000
> map ed1 10.1.0.0/16 -> 240.1.0.0/24
This could be bad news for some devices, since the 240.x.x.x address
range falls into the "reserved" Class E (E = Experimental) range, and
some devices might well discard them.
You'd be much better off using the address ranges that are officially
reserved for use in private networks (including those behind NATs):
10.0.0.0/8 (One "Class A" network of 2^^24 hosts)
172.16.0.0/12 (Four "Class B" networks of 65K hosts each)
192.168.0.0/16 (255 "Class C" networks of 254 hosts each)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul Goyette | Public Key fingerprint: | E-mail addresses: |
| Network Engineer | 0E 40 D2 FC 2A 13 74 A0 | paul@whooppee.com |
| and kernel hacker | E4 69 D5 BE 65 E4 56 C6 | paul.goyette@ascend.com |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------