From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnt Karlsen Subject: Re: Re[2]: access to server Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 04:47:45 +0200 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <20030430044745.621e715a.arnt@c2i.net> References: <5436369716.20030430004931@o2.pl> <20030430031030.50b8d13b.arnt@c2i.net> <1246491441.20030430033812@o2.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1246491441.20030430033812@o2.pl> Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: netfilter_user Cc: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 03:38:12 +0200, netfilter_user wrote in message <1246491441.20030430033812@o2.pl>: > Hello Arnt, > > Wednesday, April 30, 2003, 3:10:30 AM, you wrote: > > AK> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:49:31 +0200, > AK> netfilter_user wrote in message > AK> <5436369716.20030430004931@o2.pl>: > > >> Rule: "iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -p udp -m --multioport --dport > AK> /\ > AK> ..is " -m --multioport " a valid match in iptables, or a correct > AK> quote of your attempt to write ' -m --multiport ' ? > > damn my wrong...it should looks like this: > iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -p udp -m --multioport --dport 23073,23083 > -j ACCEPT /\ || ..lets try again: I don't find "-m --multioport" _anywhere_ in the docs, so, if you _actually_ try '-m --multioport' in your rule set, it _should_ fail, then you'll wanna try '-m --multiport', without your extra "o". ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.