From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicola Padovano Subject: Re: fragmented packet Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 20:56:01 +0200 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: netfilter-devel To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:63831 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751960Ab0IDS4X (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Sep 2010 14:56:23 -0400 Received: by wyf22 with SMTP id 22so1339688wyf.19 for ; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 11:56:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: (ps: i _suppose_ that i've not the defrag module because i've "fragmented" message in my output: i've checked MF bit and fragment offset field and they "say" to me that the packet is fragmented...so...) On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Nicola Padovano wrote: >> iptables -f? ip6tables -m frag? They already exist :) > > yes i know, but the mine is only an exercise... > >> The mangle table does already receive defragmented packets (if defrag >> module is loaded). >> > i don't load the defrag module, so the packet is not you defragmented: > infact the output says "fragmented"... > the problem is: why there are some frag with the same frag off? > > > -- > Nicola Padovano > e-mail: nicola.padovano@gmail.com > web: http://npadovano.altervista.org > -- Nicola Padovano e-mail: nicola.padovano@gmail.com web: http://npadovano.altervista.org