Re: 2.4.23 ipchains/MASQ problems

[Ray Leach <raymondl@knowledgefactory.co.za>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1532 bytes --]

Hi

Why are you still using ipchains?

Ray

On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 13:07, gARetH baBB wrote:
> Has anyone else had serious problems with 2.4.23 death when using ipchains
> and masquerading ?
> 
> I've had two boxes die with a panic as soon as they tried to do any form
> of masq, going back to .22 results in happiness.
> 
> One box is essentially a Slackware 8.1 base, and the other 9.0.
> 
> Both have similar ipchains rules.
> 
> The 8.1 box is my test box and I upgraded to .23 on it and everything was
> fine, it shifted over 4G of non-masq data during the day and showed no
> problems.
> 
> I then upgraded the 9.0 box to .23, and it died within seconds of
> networking going with a panic.
> 
> Whilst I investigated what was going on I shited the routing so the 8.1
> box did masq for the internal network. Not immediately, but within minutes
> that box too paniced. Rebooting the 8.1 box resulted in panic pretty much
> in the same way as the 9.0 box.
> 
> I put both back to .22 and sanity was restored.
> 
> I notes lots of changes in the .23 patch to the masq code and network code
> in general.
> 
> Anyone else seen these problems ? [though I presume most of you are using
> iptables and this *could* be ipchains specific]
-- 
--
Raymond Leach <raymondl@knowledgefactory.co.za>
Network Support Specialist
http://www.knowledgefactory.co.za
"lynx -source http://www.rchq.co.za/raymondl.asc | gpg --import"
Key fingerprint = 7209 A695 9EE0 E971 A9AD  00EE 8757 EE47 F06F FB28
--

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]