Re: [PATCH 2.4/2.5]

["Brian J. Murrell" <netfilter@interlinx.bc.ca>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 944 bytes --]

On Sun, 2003-06-29 at 15:11, Filip Sneppe (Cronos) wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> Are you ok with the following two patches? They allow for the
> amanda conntrack/nat modules to track up to 8 ports - it has
> more or less become a common practice for most conntrack/nat
> helpers in the kernel.

In what scenario would there be a need for multiple ports?  The
connection is initiated from the Amanda "server" to the clients.  It's
the clients that listen on port 10080, and it's the connection from the
server to the clients that is watched for, natted and conntracked.

I am having a hard time thinking of a scenario where a client would want
to listen on a port other than it's default and/or listen on multiple
ports for commands from the backup server.

The patch (the 2.4 one anyway) looks syntactically correct.  It's just
the need for it that I am not quite seeing.

b.

-- 
Brian J. Murrell <netfilter@interlinx.bc.ca>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]