Some time ago, I had a similar question. Someone came with a little program called udp-proxy. (See http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter/2004-December/057580.html) Search in Google for udpproxy and udprelay. For dhcp-relay use the program dhcrelay, compiled from the dhcp-source and included in most distributions. R. DuFresne schreef: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > isn't the key to this "solution" a bridge? I mean afterall you are trying > to join two seperate braodcast domains and the best way to do that is with > a bridge, or am I missing something here? > > Thanks, > > Ron DuFresne > > On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Derick Anderson wrote: > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: netfilter-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> [mailto:netfilter-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of /dev/rob0 > >> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 8:09 AM > >> To: netfilter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Subject: Re: NAT Helpers? > >> > >> On Saturday 2005-September-10 00:05, James Stickland wrote: > >>> My problem with this network setup is that when the terminal server > >> > >> With WHAT network setup? I saw no information about a network. > >> > >>> attempts to join the domain, or do such things as browse all the > >>> network shares (as opposed to typing in their ip address), > >> it attempts > >>> connections to the 10.10.10.7 broadcast address. The problem lies > >>> within the router - it does not forward broadcasts. > >> > >> Why not? A broadcast is just another IP. This is sometimes > >> true but not always true. It might depend on your rules. A > >> clear explanation of the issue helps in finding a resolution. > > > > I actually tried once to get DHCP to broadcast across two subnets with > > no success (I allowed the ports to be forwarded, didn't block 0.0.0.0 or > > 255.255.255.255, etc.). Of course DHCP uses 0.0.0.0 and 255.255.255.255 > > so that may be a special case. But usually broadcast addresses are > > defined within a subnet (like 10.0.0.255) and so I would think they > > wouldn't be routed outside the subnet by design. > > > > Just my thoughts - or maybe I misunderstood this part of the issue. > > > > Derick Anderson > > > > > > - -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > admin & senior security consultant: sysinfo.com > http://sysinfo.com > Key fingerprint = 9401 4B13 B918 164C 647A E838 B2DF AFCC 94B0 6629 > > ...We waste time looking for the perfect lover > instead of creating the perfect love. > > -Tom Robbins <Still Life With Woodpecker> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFDJdVZst+vzJSwZikRAm4zAJwOTuX1VS9sHnhFCcqRI1zAhihAiQCgx26d > mY5ZZ/8SmdnXRUJ+awLcPW4= > =FBgM > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Frans Luteijn PGP PblKey fprnt=C4 87 CE AF BC B6 98 C1 EF 42 A1 9A E2 C0 42 5B GPG PblKey fprnt=ED20 0F25 C233 DC59 3FFA 170E D0BF 15F5 0BA6 1355
