Yes. However, in all my previous 9.x versions the FW tab and NAT tab had their own set of sequenced numbers (FW#1, FW#2, etc. then NAT#1, NAT#2, etc.). In my current version, rule #1 starts under the NAT tab and continues the sequence through the FW tab (NAT#1, NAT#2, NAT#3, FW#4, FW#5, FW#6). Just a bit annoying since I had most of my rules memorized by number. Although, it does kind of make a bit more sense since now the NAT automatic FW rule is accounted for in the numbering sequence.
Yes. However, in all my previous 9.x versions the FW tab and NAT tab had their own set of sequenced numbers (FW#1, FW#2, etc. then NAT#1, NAT#2, etc.). In my current version, rule #1 starts under the NAT tab and continues the sequence through the FW tab (NAT#1, NAT#2, NAT#3, FW#4, FW#5, FW#6). Just a bit annoying since I had most of my rules memorized by number. Although, it does kind of make a bit more sense since now the NAT automatic FW rule is accounted for in the numbering sequence.
That is not correct. The nat rules have their own sequence eg I have two masq and 4 dnat rules. The dnat rules are 1 to 4, the firewall rules associated are 1 to 3. All dnat rules have auto packet filter ticked.
That is not correct. The nat rules have their own sequence eg I have two masq and 4 dnat rules. The dnat rules are 1 to 4, the firewall rules associated are 1 to 3. All dnat rules have auto packet filter ticked.
Ian
Well what I described is the way it is (for my UTM) after upgrading to 9.202-33.[8-)]
