Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Like I said, this is how I'd want it explained to me.
When building something more complicated, including the other mainframes, you certainly have to different practices. However, a packet going from mainframe 3 towards the others, with an address that's supposed to be in the 3 area, it's kinda pointless to allow the packet through. considering 3's positioning.
Also, in your filter example it's better to not block a way out for packets with that X.X.0.X. filter since endpoints may send things to the other addresses too. It was a horrible mistake on my part when I answered you otherwise in that thread.
Another good practice I found is to specify the mainframe number in filters for all the endpoints so that traffic doesn't get intermixed due to the packets somehow spilling.
Port 1
Same
*.*.3.*
Send back
Destination
Wouldn't that have the same effect, with the added effect of also sending out anything going to like 0.1.0.0 etc?