02-11-2010, 09:39 AM
|
#11 (permalink) |
  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
URLs submitted: 8
Posts: 14,698
 |
No... No router worth its salt is going to send packets like that. And even if you could get it to do it, your devices won't respond to that.
__________________
Rob Sandling, BS:SWE, MCP Intouch Technology Phone: 480-272-9889 rob@intouchtechllc.com UntangleAppliances.com Phone: 866-794-8879 |
|
|
02-11-2010, 12:01 PM
|
#12 (permalink) | |
|
Master Untangler
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 773
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2010, 04:24 PM
|
#13 (permalink) |
|
Untanglit
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 19
|
I'll look into setting up another box later to handle the UPnP issue; thanks for the suggestions!
What of this other question? Does anyone know, or could point me to an FAQ I may have missed regarding whether port forwards have to be duplicated within the Firewall and vice versa or not? |
|
|
|
02-11-2010, 04:29 PM
|
#14 (permalink) |
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
URLs submitted: 8
Posts: 14,698
|
The firewall module is completely independent of NAT.
Untangle port forward rules configure IPTables to translate packets. After the translation the packets are subject to the rack they are routed into by your policies. So, if you setup your firewall to be default block, yes you need a separate firewall rule. If it's default pass you don't have to worry about it. And no, inputting NAT rules doesn't magically make firewall rules for you.
__________________
Rob Sandling, BS:SWE, MCP Intouch Technology Phone: 480-272-9889 rob@intouchtechllc.com UntangleAppliances.com Phone: 866-794-8879 |
|
|
 |
| Tags |
| firewall, iptables, nat, upnp |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
