From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Taylor, Grant" Subject: Re: Remapping of starcraft UDP port 6112 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:23:54 -0500 Message-ID: <4266821A.1050500@riverviewtech.net> References: <001001c544af$d2bd15e0$3800a8c0@Dewasp> <42655AC6.9080007@riverviewtech.net> <000901c5457c$14e461e0$3800a8c0@Dewasp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <000901c5457c$14e461e0$3800a8c0@Dewasp> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Doug C Cc: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org > cheers for spoting that the rules were backwards, i think i must have > stuffed them up when putting them into the email. Thanks. It's what this list is for, to help people. > is it actually possible for iptables/netfilter to redirect the packets the > way i want it to? I would think yes. I don't know of any reason why you would have to explicitly write rules for each system. The only reason I can possibly think of is that the NATing code *might*, however not likely, be getting confused by the fact that the traffic is RELATED in such that both internal clients would be talking to the same server. > if it is possible i dont see why it shouldnt work because as i said in the > first question warcraft can use any port it pleases therefor the protocol > must be able to handle it Can we see a copy of your entire firewall script to make sure that there is nothing just slightly off about it? Grant. . . .