Re: FORWARD rules

[Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net>]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 07:56:58 +0530, 
Payal Rathod <payal-iptables@staticky.com> wrote in message 
<20030913022658.GD1667@linux.local>:

> On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 08:14:25PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:51:41 +0200, 
> > > > ..lose "NEW".
> > > 
> > > Just what I said, wasn't it ?
> > 
> > ..nah, but you probably _meant_ it.  ;-)
> 
> I think he said it :). Look below.
> 
> 
> | $IPTABLES -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
> | $IPTABLES -A FORWARD -m state --state NEW -s 125.125.125.0/32 -p tcp
> | \       -m tcp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT
> 
> -Payal

..wrong snippet.  ;-)  Reread the thread, and you'll see both I 
and Cedric weren't to clear on that we meant to say, we _implied_ 
things instead of actually _saying_ them, I snipped to hard and 
lost Cedric, and added to the confusion.  I'm talking about the 
"NEW" under this bit:
" > $IPTABLES -P FORWARD ACCEPT
  > 		     ^^^^^^ ".

-- 
..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.