Re: an annoying question

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1787 bytes --]

On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 02:10, Richard Bown wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 22:14, Cedric Blancher wrote:
> > Le mer 11/02/2004 à 22:53, Richard Bown a écrit :
> > > I suspect from the results I've seen running 2.6.2 with iptables-1.2.9
> > > that the handling of DNAT & SNAT is very different.
> > 
> > Afaik, from a user point of vue, there's no difference between 2.4 and
> > 2.6. I'm using a 2.6.1 kernel on which all the scripts I've written for
> > 2.4 kernels are working just the way they did before, for filtering,
> > mangling and nating...
> > 
> > What kind of results makes you believe there are major differences on
> > NAT handling ?
> > 
> Hi Cedric
> I'm using MDK 9.2 and iptables-1.2.9-4mdk plus shorewall 1.4.8-3mdk with
> kernel 2.4.22-26mddk
> 
> 
> when trying to run with kernel -2.6.2 shorewall stopped after an iptable
> invalid argument o n a rule starting DNAT.
> That rule was hashed out and all rules loaded , until the masq section
> which again halted shorewall.
Sounds like your kernel config doesn't have MASQ and/or NAT support. You
need to recompile the kernel with those options included.

> I tried an iptables -F to flush out all rules and allow networking but
> no avail.
> I really would like to knoqw whats happening so I understand what to do.
> 
> Richard 
> > One big difference is bridge interfaces handling, as physical interfaces
> > cannot get matched using -i/-o switches anymore (br0 is seen through
> > them) so you have to use physdev match.
-- 
--
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: 189 bytes --]