Port Mapping OS X Server, Once and for all…….

[l008com]

I’m going out of my mind here, I’ve been trying to set up port mapping for years, last night I spent hours doing it. You can’t modify natd.conf cause apple will overwrite it. I tried making a custom natd.custom.conf file, and starting natd using it manually, but when I did, my whole internet would go out. I tried setting the options in the natd.plist using apple’s crazy xml format, and when i load my settings in, natd just won’t start, though it won’t tell me why. But I can assume its because I leave the alias IP blank, since my external IP is dynamic. In real natd.conf, you can leave alias out you just have to specify the interface “en0”. I tried all sorts of variations of that, but NOTHING would work! I even tried using BrickHouse at one point but that thing totally messed with my config files and cause all sorts of problems. In the end, i used Webmin to set up my firewall rules, and I just need to map a bunch of ports and I’ll be good to go! And I’m starting to get really pissed at apple, if they weren’t going to put a real port mapping GUI into the natd panel, then they should have left natd alone so we could edit its config file normally.

[dreness]

Seriously, shell out the $40 for the dedicated network appliance that does NAT. Using NAT in OS X Server works (including the port mapping; I have done it many times), but it’s simply a much worse solution than a dedicated appliance.

For what it’s worth, I totally understand your frustration that apple seems to have stopped short on the NAT implimentation. In my view, the NAT documentation should include a great big caveat: The time you will spend wailing against it, figuring out firewall rules to let NAT’d clients properly access external services (the server docs don’t touch this issue), and the downtime your network will experience due to reboots, etc… that is all worth more than $40 in almost every case. I applaud your desire to get it working, but… sometimes the cheap and easy way is also the best way

[l008com]

I couldn’t disagree more. $40 routers are the most unreliable devices out there. Using one (instead of my server) would ensure countless hours of downtime, with an ever increasing frequency. In my experience, consumer routers all suck. They randomly stop working for no reason. I’ve seen it happen over and over and over, to linksys and netgear routers. I would never use anything but a computer for a router, unless i was going to spend a LOT on a real pro quality router. But why spend the money when I have a server that can just as easily route. The one killer is portmappings, but I’d rather not have port mappings on my network, than trust my internet connection to a cheap unreliable $40 router.

[Author]

Posts