From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?0JvQvtC20LXRh9C90LjQuiDQkNC70LXQutGB0LDQvdC00YA=?= Subject: Re: Differentiating direct, and redirected access? Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:18:21 +0000 Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <417408ED.5070406@itak.ua> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org Jason Opperisano wrote: >>-t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -d ! $INT_ROUTER_IP -p tcp --dport 80 -j >>REDIRECT --to-ports 3128 >>-A INPUT -i eth0 -d $INT_ROUTER_IP -p tcp --dport 3128 -J REJECT >> >>TCP SYN have external ip dst_ip. >> >> > >the TCP SYN to port 80 has the dst IP of the web server on the internet. > >the redirected packet to TCP port 3128 has the dst IP of the redirected >interface (eth0 in this case). > >your suggested REJECT rule will reject all redirected traffic to port >3128, and is essentially the issue the OP had already run into, and was >asking for a work-around. > >-j > Hmm. Your right. So, fw-mark is great idea. wbr, Logechnik Alexandr In God we trust, but something else must have X.509 certificate