From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Beverley Subject: Re: Redirecting ports with netfilter: unexpected varying results possibly correlated with NAT Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:37:36 +0100 Message-ID: <1319668656.26402.6877.camel@andybev-desktop> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=andybev.com; s=selector1; t=1319668657; bh=2rL1KScOO8rOzc5uY2MGc7YdUnE7TeMFOB6+m3sWdEA=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-ID:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=dWRE/5WDqmDC/XIlq+LIAaAJVVcqg9AjDgZaCaUDcIw+a2v+uyXToABT8ihe+wCPG bWJu/fRwzeoUUtwe0ydyae7PQQ7v+I6YEEWAhqoH2EObjOFu40t+SAwAAVphhj+m5r xdVFYr2mtvPs/QGRNyjasj2EgwVsqwTdiKC/aSZw= In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Ronald Cc: netfilter@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 22:52 +0200, Ronald wrote: > > (Please cc me as I'm not subscribed to this list.) > > > > Hello netfilter enthousiasts, > > > > > > Conclusion: Using wireless, which is not NAT-ed, port redirection > > seems to fail. Responses to the client are dropped somewhere along the > > way. > > > > I'm suprised by the absence of a response. Does this indicate that I > failed to provide enough information? Possibly that you provided too much information. It took me a while to read through and work out exactly where your email was going. Try and stick to the absolute minimum to explain what does/doesn't work. One approach that I have seen people use is to use a short summary of the problem at the beginning ("short story") followed by a detailed analysis ("long story"). > Or does this mean that nobody has any idea what is going on here? If I > did something wrong, please tell me. I suspect more likely the latter. I did read your post, as I'm sure others did, but no answers jump out at me. I'll reply now with some thoughts but no answers. Andy