[Fwd: Re: [UFO Chicago] NAT and port filtering]
Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:25:09 -0600
Isn't it supposed to be a "Mail-Followup-To:" header, as it's a mailing
Reply-To: would need to be respected so that an individual user could
direct replies to their posts.
David W. Harks
CougarNet Network Ops Admin
And I really hate the lack of a Reply-To: list header on this list. :-)
-------- Original Message --------
Robert B. Moses wrote:
> Thank for refreshing the principle of this issue. I think I'll have to
> experiment a litte. If anyone is interested the culprit in question is
> Netgear's RT314 Internet Gateway Router w/4 port switch.
> From what I can tell it has some nice features: filtering of TCP/UDP
> well as generic filters based on byte patterns of the packet (hmm that
> sounds closer to SPI...)
FWIW, I have the Linksys equivalent, plus WiFi AP. It has a web front
end on it. By default it drops any incoming requests, unless I
explicitly specify a routing for given protocol/port (eg, TCP port 80
redirect to 192.168.1.12). If I do nothing to it, then it automatically
is a client only setup. It does let FTP through both ways (if I
initiate it) without me doing anything.
I hate to sound like the anoying kid in the back of the room, but try
just plugging it in and see what the defaults are. It's a good bed that
the default config for a turnkey router is exactly what you're looking
for (multiple clients, no servers, no questions asked).
Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42
email@example.com ICQ: 6817012
"The world's most dangerous terrorist is at large in the US. He has his
sights set on making the entire American population cower in fear. He
has ordered his people to assassinate American citizens. Do you know
him? His name is George W. Bush."
UFO Chicago -- Users of Free Operating Systems
Free Software Rules -- Proprietary Drools!