* pptp nat and fedora core3
@ 2005-02-17 13:41 Peter Marshall
2005-02-17 14:34 ` Jason Opperisano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Peter Marshall @ 2005-02-17 13:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netfilter
I am building a firewall that has to support the natting of pptp ... I
was hoping fedora core 3 would have the necessary conntrack modules
(like gre and pptp) built into the kernel ... but it does not ...
I would REALLY prefer to not have to re-compile the kernel ... Is there
a "laodmodule" line I can use to add the stuff at runtime ? What
modules do I need ?
I am going to have windows xp boxes use the built in pptp client to
connect out of my lan to an external site ....
Is there a difference between what you would do with rh9 and fed core3
Thanks for the advice,
Peter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: pptp nat and fedora core3
2005-02-17 13:41 pptp nat and fedora core3 Peter Marshall
@ 2005-02-17 14:34 ` Jason Opperisano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jason Opperisano @ 2005-02-17 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netfilter
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 08:41, Peter Marshall wrote:
> I am building a firewall that has to support the natting of pptp ... I
> was hoping fedora core 3 would have the necessary conntrack modules
> (like gre and pptp) built into the kernel ... but it does not ...
nope--sure doesn't.
> I would REALLY prefer to not have to re-compile the kernel ...
well...ya gotta...
> Is there
> a "laodmodule" line I can use to add the stuff at runtime ?
no.
> What
> modules do I need ?
ip_conntrack_pptp
ip_conntrack_proto_gre
ip_nat_pptp
ip_nat_proto_gre
> I am going to have windows xp boxes use the built in pptp client to
> connect out of my lan to an external site ....
>
> Is there a difference between what you would do with rh9 and fed core3
sort of. redhat 9 is a 2.4-based distro, while fc3 is a 2.6-based
distro. you can search the archives on this, but my observation is that
there are still issues with the 2.6 of the PPTP conntrack/nat code.
if you *must* use 2.6, you almost certainly will want to grab the latest
POM from SVN. note: "must" means the machine you are using as the
firewall will not run with a 2.4 kernel.
if the machine is 2.4-friendly, then stick with what works. since rh9
is eol--if this is a new install, and you like the rh-style of distro,
might i suggest CentOS as base for your firewall? take it from a guy
that runs it--FC is a toy, and a nightmare to maintain if you're used
stable code and patch updates that don't break things...
-j
--
"I'm better than dirt. Well, most kinds of dirt... not that fancy
store-bought dirt... that stuff's loaded with nutrients, I... I
can't compete with that stuff."
--The Simpsons
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-02-17 14:34 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-02-17 13:41 pptp nat and fedora core3 Peter Marshall
2005-02-17 14:34 ` Jason Opperisano
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.