From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mohamed Eldesoky Subject: Re: physdev match Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:44:42 +0300 Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <1403218a04092204446c0f798d@mail.gmail.com> References: <1403218a04092203537a1bbd0c@mail.gmail.com> <200409221158.19795.gdh@acentral.co.uk> <1403218a0409220401158fd1ed@mail.gmail.com> <200409221217.11787.gdh@acentral.co.uk> Reply-To: Mohamed Eldesoky Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200409221217.11787.gdh@acentral.co.uk> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: netfilter Well, the patch had some failures. I saw it has the physdev in the patch !! patching file include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_physdev.h Will this patch add the physdev match ?? I am thinking about going with a stock kernel !! On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:17:11 +0100, Gavin Hamill wrote: > On Wednesday 22 September 2004 12:01, Mohamed Eldesoky wrote: > > ummm > > I was looking at the possibilities. > > Also, what if I don't want to use ebtables !! > > 'ebtables' is just a round-all term for what became of the 'bridge > firewalling' code. You don't need to use the 'ebtables' binary at all if all > you want to do is apply firewall rules on a bridged system. > > However, it remains to be seen whether the ebtables code would even patch > successfully on an RHEL kernel source, plus if using a 'Real' Red Hat kernel > is important to you, then you'll obviously not want to recompile at all. > > Unless RHEL already contains the support (look for 'Bridge firewalling > registered' in the 'dmesg' output from boot time) then you're a bit stuck. > > Of course, all this talk of ebtables is now off topic =) > > Cheers, > Gavin. > > -- Mohamed Eldesoky www.eldesoky.net RHCE