STYMA, ROBERT E (ROBERT) wrote: >> I assume I am using NAT, >> since I have a number of other computers (Linux and Windows) >> attached to the above machine, >> and they access the outside world through email and the web. >> > To see if you have NAT, look at your ip address > "ifconfig -a" on linux and "ipconfig" on windows. > If you are using nat, you will probably see an > ip address in starting with 10.something or > 192.168.something. I take it this shows I am running NAT? -------------------------------------------- [root@alfred ~]# iptables -L -t nat Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ppp0_masq all -- anywhere anywhere Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain ppp0_masq (1 references) target prot opt source destination MASQUERADE all -- 192.168.1.0/24 anywhere MASQUERADE all -- 192.168.3.0/24 anywhere MASQUERADE all -- 169.254.0.0/16 anywhere -------------------------------------------- As a matter of interest, is it possible to run a home network _without_ NAT? > If you would like a simple way out, you can consider > getting an inexpensive DSL/Cable router. Several people have suggested this, but I'm not sure why it is thought better than iptables on a computer. It seems to me that a router is a black box, and you're basically trusting software you know nothing about to only allow certain packets through. Isn't that slightly against the Linux philosophy? -- Timothy Murphy e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
