[isalist] Re: Publishing a SSH Server (The solution)
- From: "Jim Harrison" <Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,<isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 08:16:02 -0700
There's only one reason I can think of that this would be required - SSH imbeds
the client IP in the packets (much like IPSec)...
I'll see what I can dig out of the RFC's...
________________________________
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Thomas W Shinder
Sent: Thu 5/11/2006 8:30 AM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: Publishing a SSH Server (The solution)
Wow. that is really whack. I hope we can someday figure out why this works!
Tom
Thomas W Shinder, M.D.
Site: www.isaserver.org <http://www.isaserver.org/>
Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/
Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7 <http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7>
MVP -- ISA Firewalls
________________________________
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wilmar Perez
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:16 AM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: Publishing a SSH Server (The solution)
Hello Tom
No, I didn't have to delete the NAT rule. Right now it is working with
the Route rule before the NAT rule, that is, the Route rule is higher.
Thanks
Wilmar
All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
Other related posts:
