From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Antony Stone Subject: Re: icmp echo reply && FORWARD chain Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 15:46:51 +0100 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <200405021546.51594.Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk> References: <006701c43051$39130ad0$68892090@grouse> Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <006701c43051$39130ad0$68892090@grouse> 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 Sunday 02 May 2004 3:24 pm, Jee J.Z. wrote: > Hi all, > > My rules on a gateway linux box (PC2) are set as follows: > > Internet(PC1 and so on)-----------(eth0)-PC2-(eth1)-------------Internal > networks(PC3 and so on...) > > iptables -F > iptables -F -t nat > iptables -I FORWARD -j QUEUE > iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j SNAT --to global_ip > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.2 That is a weird-looking rule. Where does IP 192.168.0.2 exist on the above diagram? > ICMP echo request packets from PC1 or PC3 to PC2 can be caught by the > FORWARD chain queuing to userspace, however, ICMP echo reply (in response > to ping request from PC2) packets from PC1 or PC3 to PC2 will be ignored by > the FORWARD chain. Is this a reasonable phenomenon? Could anyone tell me > the reasons? Thanks a lot in advance! > > Cheers, > Jee -- Ramdisk is not an installation procedure. Please reply to the list; please don't CC me.