Comment 3 for bug 247455
Revision history for this message
| KarlGoetz (kgoetz) wrote Re: [Bug 247455] Re: a Nat option would be helpful for gateway systems | #3 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
4d1350f
demo site
(Get the code!)
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 13:31 +0000, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> Thank you for using ufw and issuing the bug. The idea is not crazy at
> all and I often envisioned ufw doing this. However, I am not sure when
> or if this functionality will be added, because the main focus is host-
> based firewalls. This may be added in the future, but it is important
> that ufw's interface not become 'complicated' and simply a different
> (but equally complex) syntax to iptables. For example, while you and I
I understand - i partially suspected this was why i hadnt seen it on the
TODO list.
> clearly know what 'nat' is, the average ufw user may not (and there is
> the whole issue of masquerading vs not masquerading).
>
> I believe it should be possible, but it has to be carefully thought out.
>
> ** Changed in: ufw
> Importance: Undecided => Wishlist
> Status: New => Confirmed
>
--
Karl Goetz <email address hidden>