From: Claude Brisson <claude@renegat.net>
To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
Subject: port restricted cone behaviour
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:49:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1111614580.3657.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
Hi folks,
I noticed that on some occasions, iptables does not behave strictly as a
port restricted cone NAT.
That is, when I reuse an internal udp socket towards a new external
host/port, iptables will SOMETIMES use a new mapping port... is it a
known behaviour? a bug? a feature?
distrib debian woody
kernel: v2.4.18-bf2.4
iptables: v1.2.6a
--
Claude
reply other threads:[~2005-03-23 21:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1111614580.3657.11.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=claude@renegat.net \
--cc=netfilter@lists.netfilter.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox