Re: pptp-conntrack-nat

[Mike Machado <mike@innercite.com>]

There appears to be something that affects more than just the MASQUERADE
target. For shitz and gigglez I tried changing the rule to

iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.1.0/24 -o eth0 -j REJECT

and got the same Invalid Argument. I then tried -j DROP and that worked.
ipt_REJECT is also loaded, so is it possible that the pptp-conntrack-nat
patches changes some internal nat structures or code that is not
allowing the other ipt_ modules to function?

Just to be thorough, did a fresh cvs update I applied all the pending
patches, and got the same thing. 

On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 17:04, Mike Machado wrote:
> I used CVS/POM and patched my vanilla 2.4.20 kernel to include support
> for ip_conntrack_pptp and ip_nat_pptp, but after I do this, the
> MASQUERADE target no longer works. lsmod shows both modules load
> successfully as well as the ipt_MASQUERADE, but when I run my nat rule:
> 
> iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.1.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE
> 
> it just says Invalid Argument. I have two identical kernels, one with
> the pptp patch applied, one without, and the one without allows the
> MASQUERADE target just fine. Is there a known bug with the latest CVS
> pptp-conntrack-nat patch interfearing with masquerading? Thanks.
-- 
Mike Machado
mike@innercite.com
InnerCite Inc.
Engineering Director / CTO