From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "German Viera" Subject: Patch h323_contrack Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:49:02 -0300 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <008701c3bf24$5ed21520$037803cf@german> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0084_01C3BF0B.397B8E50" Return-path: Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0084_01C3BF0B.397B8E50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable HI everybody, I had patched my kernerl with patch-o-matic and added the = h323_contrack patch for NAT'ing h323. I have some Cisco equipement (ATA = 186) and I would like to know if somebody had any previous experience on = NAT'ing then with iptables. Does the iptables roules change using this = patch ??? Hope somebody could help me Regards , ------=_NextPart_000_0084_01C3BF0B.397B8E50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HI everybody,

I had patched my = kernerl with=20 patch-o-matic and added the h323_contrack patch for NAT'ing h323. I have = some=20 Cisco equipement (ATA 186) and I would like to know if somebody had any = previous=20 experience on NAT'ing then with iptables. Does the iptables roules = change using=20 this patch ???

Hope somebody could help = me

Regards ,

------=_NextPart_000_0084_01C3BF0B.397B8E50--