Re: Iptables NAT with windows servers (netbios ?)
redhat_at_buglecreek.com
Date: 07/05/05
- Previous message: Kelley.Coleman_at_med.va.gov: "RE: LVM question"
- Maybe in reply to: redhat_at_buglecreek.com: "Iptables NAT with windows servers (netbios ?)"
- Next in thread: Eucke: "Re: Iptables NAT with windows servers (netbios ?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: redhat-list@redhat.com Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 10:29:08 -0400
----- Original message -----
From: "Chris" <chris@buglecreek.com>
To: "General Red Hat Linux discussion list" <redhat-list@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 10:23:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Iptables NAT with windows servers (netbios ?)
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 06:29:21 -0500 (EST), "Mike Burger"
<mburger@bubbanfriends.org> said:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 redhat@buglecreek.com wrote:
>
> > Here is the setup I would like to use: I am using a Redhat 3 box to
> > firewall and nat an internal network with both Windows and Linux
> > clients. The windows clients need to be able to login and see their
> > drives on a windows server that is located on another network on the
> > other side on the Linux box. The natting seems to work find (all
> > clients can browse the Internet), however when the windows clients log
> > in and then try to access their drives on the server in the other
> > network all they see is their local drive. No error is shown during the
> > login. Is there a way to get this to work through the Linux box? I
> > have seen people mention to nat everything but the netbios traffic ( not
> > sure about that). Also, there is the LMHOSTS file, is that a possible
> > solution? I'm not very familiar with windows, so this is really
> > challenging me. Hopefully, the diagram below will further clarify.
> > Also,
> > it is desired to keep the Windows server in its present location.
> >
> > 202.x.x.x eth0 eth1 192.168.x.x
> > windows server ----- Linux Box (NAT/Firewall) --------win/linux clients
>
> I'm afraid that we're probably going to need more info, such as your
> iptables rules, whether or not you've opened up all the appropriate
> ports.
>
> --
> Mike Burger
> http://www.bubbanfriends.org
>
> Visit the Dog Pound II BBS
> telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or http://dogpound2.citadel.org
>
> To be notified of updates to the web site, visit
> http://www.bubbanfriends.org/mailman/listinfo/site-update, or send a
> message to:
>
> site-update-request@bubbanfriends.org
>
> with a message of:
>
> subscribe
>
> --
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
To try to eliminate the firewall rules causing the problem, I set all
chains default policies to accept and had only one masquerade rule for
nat. Still no luck.
-- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
- Previous message: Kelley.Coleman_at_med.va.gov: "RE: LVM question"
- Maybe in reply to: redhat_at_buglecreek.com: "Iptables NAT with windows servers (netbios ?)"
- Next in thread: Eucke: "Re: Iptables NAT with windows servers (netbios ?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
