From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Antony Stone Subject: Re: [despammed] -i and -o options for iptables FORWARD chain Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:03:02 +0000 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <200401021403.02171.Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk> References: <009a01c3cff6$ee23bd90$a5bbd00c@issaquah> <20040102133002.GA6057@kaufbach.delug.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040102133002.GA6057@kaufbach.delug.de> Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org On Friday 02 January 2004 1:30 pm, Andreas Kretschmer wrote: > am Wed, dem 31.12.2003, um 15:36:34 -0800 mailte Gongya Yu folgendes: > > Hi, I just updated Linux kernel to 2.6.0 with iptables and ebtables > > enabled. > > I'm using iptables on 2.4.x, possible there are differences with 2.6.x. > > > But iptables ignores -i and -o options for FORWARD chain. Wheneneve I use > > something like -i eth0 or -o eth0, the rule is just ignored. > > RTFM! > > -i is only for INPUT, FORWARD and PREROUTING > -o is only for FORWARD, OUTPUT and POSTROUTING Are you suggesting that -i and -o cannot be used in FORWARD? As far as I can see the syntax of the rule Gonya posted is perfectly okay. Antony. -- Christmas is an opportunity to upgrade to kernel 2.6 while no-one's around to notice the downtime. Please reply to the list; please don't CC me.