From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Les Mikesell Subject: Re: Need help with basic understanding of IPtables Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:14:58 -0500 Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <1098742498.18510.8.camel@moola.futuresource.com> References: <20041025193800.GA24645@bender.817west.com> <33D73F71797CC09A67671396@[10.169.6.246]> <20041025200130.GS29776@der-frank.org> <7513F20F705FE54833EA4134@[10.169.6.246]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <7513F20F705FE54833EA4134@[10.169.6.246]> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Kenneth Porter Cc: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 16:23, Kenneth Porter wrote: > > IP numbers belong to the IP stack and have nothing to do with > > interfaces. This idea is completely useless, forget it, this will make > > things (eg. routing) a lot more understandable. From this point of > > view, Jasons posting is IMHO very clear. > > I only point it out because not everyone knows that there's a difference, > and may think that the non-NIC interfaces are immune. I remember setting up > my first ipchains firewall and thinking it odd that I needed explicit rules > for the loopback interface, but it makes perfect sense in hindsight. The part that I think is weird is that NAT may be tied to an interface when first applied, but even if routes are changed so that packets to a particular address no longer go through that interface, any that have an entry in the ip_conntrack table continue to have the NAT applied. Is this intentional? --- Les Mikesell les@futuresource.com