From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Gongya Yu" Subject: -i and -o options for iptables FORWARD chain Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:36:34 -0800 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <009a01c3cff6$ee23bd90$a5bbd00c@issaquah> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0097_01C3CFB3.DF42F9F0" Return-path: Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01C3CFB3.DF42F9F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I just updated Linux kernel to 2.6.0 with iptables and ebtables = enabled. But iptables ignores -i and -o options for FORWARD chain. Wheneneve I = use something like -i eth0 or -o eth0, the rule is just ignored. Any suggestions ? thanks in advance!! Gongya Yu ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01C3CFB3.DF42F9F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, I just updated Linux kernel to = 2.6.0 with=20 iptables and ebtables enabled.
 
But iptables ignores -i and -o options = for FORWARD=20 chain. Wheneneve I use something like -i eth0 or -o eth0, the rule is = just=20 ignored.
 
Any suggestions ?
 
thanks in advance!!
 
Gongya Yu
------=_NextPart_000_0097_01C3CFB3.DF42F9F0-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Antony Stone Subject: Re: -i and -o options for iptables FORWARD chain Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:08:16 +0000 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <200401021308.16360.Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk> References: <009a01c3cff6$ee23bd90$a5bbd00c@issaquah> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <009a01c3cff6$ee23bd90$a5bbd00c@issaquah> 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@lists.netfilter.org On Wednesday 31 December 2003 11:36 pm, Gongya Yu wrote: > Hi, I just updated Linux kernel to 2.6.0 with iptables and ebtables > enabled. > > But iptables ignores -i and -o options for FORWARD chain. Wheneneve I use > something like -i eth0 or -o eth0, the rule is just ignored. > > Any suggestions ? I am not a 2.6 expert by any means, so this is just a suggestion: did you recompile the userspace tools (iptables) to match the new kernel code (netfilter)? Antony. -- My New Year's resolution is not to make any resolutions I can't keep. I'm wondering whether I've failed already. Please reply to the list; please don't CC me. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Kretschmer Subject: Re: [despammed] -i and -o options for iptables FORWARD chain Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:30:02 +0100 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <20040102133002.GA6057@kaufbach.delug.de> References: <009a01c3cff6$ee23bd90$a5bbd00c@issaquah> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <009a01c3cff6$ee23bd90$a5bbd00c@issaquah> Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org am Wed, dem 31.12.2003, um 15:36:34 -0800 mailte Gongya Yu folgendes: > Hi, I just updated Linux kernel to 2.6.0 with iptables and ebtables enabl= ed. I'm using iptables on 2.4.x, possible there are differences with 2.6.x. > =20 > But iptables ignores -i and -o options for FORWARD chain. Wheneneve I use > something like -i eth0 or -o eth0, the rule is just ignored. RTFM! -i is only for INPUT, FORWARD and PREROUTING -o is only for FORWARD, OUTPUT and POSTROUTING You can use -s and -d (Source and Destination-IP). Andreas --=20 Diese Message wurde erstellt mit freundlicher Unterst=FCtzung eines freilau- fenden Pinguins aus artgerechter Freilandhaltung. Er ist garantiert frei von Micro$oft'schen Viren. (#97922 http://counter.li.org) GPG 7F4584DA Was, Sie wissen nicht, wo Kaufbach ist? Hier: N 51.05082=B0, E 13.56889=B0 = ;-) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Antony Stone Subject: Re: [despammed] -i and -o options for iptables FORWARD chain Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:03:02 +0000 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <200401021403.02171.Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk> References: <009a01c3cff6$ee23bd90$a5bbd00c@issaquah> <20040102133002.GA6057@kaufbach.delug.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040102133002.GA6057@kaufbach.delug.de> Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org On Friday 02 January 2004 1:30 pm, Andreas Kretschmer wrote: > am Wed, dem 31.12.2003, um 15:36:34 -0800 mailte Gongya Yu folgendes: > > Hi, I just updated Linux kernel to 2.6.0 with iptables and ebtables > > enabled. > > I'm using iptables on 2.4.x, possible there are differences with 2.6.x. > > > But iptables ignores -i and -o options for FORWARD chain. Wheneneve I use > > something like -i eth0 or -o eth0, the rule is just ignored. > > RTFM! > > -i is only for INPUT, FORWARD and PREROUTING > -o is only for FORWARD, OUTPUT and POSTROUTING Are you suggesting that -i and -o cannot be used in FORWARD? As far as I can see the syntax of the rule Gonya posted is perfectly okay. Antony. -- Christmas is an opportunity to upgrade to kernel 2.6 while no-one's around to notice the downtime. Please reply to the list; please don't CC me. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Kretschmer Subject: Re: [despammed] -i and -o options for iptables FORWARD chain Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:25:51 +0100 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <20040102142551.GA6925@kaufbach.delug.de> References: <009a01c3cff6$ee23bd90$a5bbd00c@issaquah> <20040102133002.GA6057@kaufbach.delug.de> <200401021403.02171.Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200401021403.02171.Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk> Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org am Fri, dem 02.01.2004, um 14:03:02 +0000 mailte Antony Stone folgendes: > > -i is only for INPUT, FORWARD and PREROUTING > > -o is only for FORWARD, OUTPUT and POSTROUTING >=20 > Are you suggesting that -i and -o cannot be used in FORWARD? As far as = I can=20 > see the syntax of the rule Gonya posted is perfectly okay. Oh, i'm sorry, parse error by me =3D:-( Andreas --=20 Diese Message wurde erstellt mit freundlicher Unterst=FCtzung eines freilau- fenden Pinguins aus artgerechter Freilandhaltung. Er ist garantiert frei von Micro$oft'schen Viren. (#97922 http://counter.li.org) GPG 7F4584DA Was, Sie wissen nicht, wo Kaufbach ist? Hier: N 51.05082=B0, E 13.56889=B0 = ;-) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Subject: RE: [despammed] -i and -o options for iptables FORWARD chain Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:13:09 -0600 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <7A3B4AA360FDEF448F3390421FC8D731012C6B04@coxhpexg.coxhp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: content-class: urn:content-classes:message 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@lists.netfilter.org Actually, couldn't this be just a 2.6.x change? (I never saw the rules = go by...) I thought I saw a message go by earlier to that effect. = Something about the syntax and needing '--physdev' and '-i' both, or = something? I could search the archives, I guess, but instead I suggest Gonya give = that a go. Bob -----Original Message----- From: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org [mailto:netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org]On Behalf Of Antony Stone Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 8:03 AM To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org Subject: Re: [despammed] -i and -o options for iptables FORWARD chain On Friday 02 January 2004 1:30 pm, Andreas Kretschmer wrote: > am Wed, dem 31.12.2003, um 15:36:34 -0800 mailte Gongya Yu folgendes: > > Hi, I just updated Linux kernel to 2.6.0 with iptables and ebtables > > enabled. > > I'm using iptables on 2.4.x, possible there are differences with = 2.6.x. > > > But iptables ignores -i and -o options for FORWARD chain. Wheneneve = I use > > something like -i eth0 or -o eth0, the rule is just ignored. > > RTFM! > > -i is only for INPUT, FORWARD and PREROUTING > -o is only for FORWARD, OUTPUT and POSTROUTING Are you suggesting that -i and -o cannot be used in FORWARD? As far as = I can=20 see the syntax of the rule Gonya posted is perfectly okay. Antony. --=20 Christmas is an opportunity to upgrade to kernel 2.6 while no-one's = around to=20 notice the downtime. Please reply to the = list; please don't = CC me. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Loukes Subject: RE: [despammed] -i and -o options for iptables FORWARD chain Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:21:48 +0000 (GMT) Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: References: <7A3B4AA360FDEF448F3390421FC8D731012C6B04@coxhpexg.coxhp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <7A3B4AA360FDEF448F3390421FC8D731012C6B04@coxhpexg.coxhp.com> 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" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: bmcdowell@coxhealthplans.com Cc: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 bmcdowell@coxhealthplans.com wrote: > Actually, couldn't this be just a 2.6.x change? (I never saw the rules > go by...) I thought I saw a message go by earlier to that effect. > Something about the syntax and needing '--physdev' and '-i' both, or > something? > > I could search the archives, I guess, but instead I suggest Gonya give > that a go. No, the physdev stuff is for bridging. -i and -o work the same in 2.6 as 2.4 -- Andy Loukes http://www.navaho.co.uk Complete Appliance Technology From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Unknown Subject: Re: [despammed] -i and -o options for iptables FORWARD chain Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:05:24 -0500 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <7544.88308816708$1073059859@news.gmane.org> References: <7A3B4AA360FDEF448F3390421FC8D731012C6B04@coxhpexg.coxhp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: From: Alistair Tonner <> In-Reply-To: <7A3B4AA360FDEF448F3390421FC8D731012C6B04@coxhpexg.coxhp.com> Content-Disposition: inline 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: bmcdowell@coxhealthplans.com, netfilter@lists.netfilter.org On January 2, 2004 10:13 am, bmcdowell@coxhealthplans.com wrote: > Actually, couldn't this be just a 2.6.x change? (I never saw the rules go > by...) I thought I saw a message go by earlier to that effect. Something > about the syntax and needing '--physdev' and '-i' both, or something? > > I could search the archives, I guess, but instead I suggest Gonya give that > a go. > Userspace tools need to be recompiled from 2.4.x kenels to 2.6.0 I got weird results switching. Recompile fixed the problems. Alistair > > Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org > [mailto:netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org]On Behalf Of Antony Stone > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 8:03 AM > To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org > Subject: Re: [despammed] -i and -o options for iptables FORWARD chain > > On Friday 02 January 2004 1:30 pm, Andreas Kretschmer wrote: > > am Wed, dem 31.12.2003, um 15:36:34 -0800 mailte Gongya Yu folgendes: > > > Hi, I just updated Linux kernel to 2.6.0 with iptables and ebtables > > > enabled. > > > > I'm using iptables on 2.4.x, possible there are differences with 2.6.x. > > > > > But iptables ignores -i and -o options for FORWARD chain. Wheneneve I > > > use something like -i eth0 or -o eth0, the rule is just ignored. > > > > RTFM! > > > > -i is only for INPUT, FORWARD and PREROUTING > > -o is only for FORWARD, OUTPUT and POSTROUTING > > Are you suggesting that -i and -o cannot be used in FORWARD? As far as I > can see the syntax of the rule Gonya posted is perfectly okay. > > Antony.