<![CDATA[Improvement to fw & NAT]]>Hi all. Perhaps this is not the correct way to do this, so sorry.

would be desirable to use hostnames on NAT and filter rules.

Great job!! Many thanks!!

]]>https://forum.netgate.com/topic/52193/improvement-to-fw-natRSS for NodeTue, 14 Apr 2026 11:47:58 GMTTue, 22 Jan 2013 09:20:23 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Improvement to fw & NAT on Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:00:26 GMT]]>Another improvement is to use "not" on port destination.

For example:  How can I block all connections from one host that's don't use https port destination? (without the need to create two or more rules)

]]>https://forum.netgate.com/post/380205https://forum.netgate.com/post/380205Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:00:26 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Improvement to fw & NAT on Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:53:27 GMT]]>@cmb:

Aliases automatically update to new IPs as needed.

mmm if it's true, i'll try this.

Thanks!!

]]>https://forum.netgate.com/post/380204https://forum.netgate.com/post/380204Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:53:27 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Improvement to fw & NAT on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:37:15 GMT]]>Aliases automatically update to new IPs as needed.

]]>https://forum.netgate.com/post/374737https://forum.netgate.com/post/374737Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:37:15 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Improvement to fw & NAT on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:13:34 GMT]]>@cmb:

you can, via aliases.

MMmmm not. I say to use real hostnames, because exits the posibility that dhcp (or anything else) change the hostname ip.

Captive portal manage hostnames, so I think that is a good idea to use hostnames on fw or nat too.

It's only a suggestion…

Thanks!!!

]]>https://forum.netgate.com/post/374733https://forum.netgate.com/post/374733Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:13:34 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Improvement to fw & NAT on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:20:57 GMT]]>you can, via aliases.

]]>https://forum.netgate.com/post/374035https://forum.netgate.com/post/374035Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:20:57 GMT