From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alex Tang <altitude@funkware.com>
Subject: stop/start iptables vs. "iptables-restore"
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:32:58 -0700
Message-ID: <46CE273A.50807@funkware.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org>
List-Id: <netfilter.vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter>,
	<mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: </pipermail/netfilter>
List-Post: <mailto:netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter>,
	<mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org

Hi folks,

We run a linux based product (RHEL4 based, kernel-2.6.9-55, and 
iptables-1.2.11). During the running of the product, when we make 
changes to the iptables configuration, we use the SysV-like RHEL script 
"/etc/init.d/iptables restart", which effectively stops iptables, 
unloads all of the iptables based kernel modules, then starts iptables 
and all the kernel stuff. 

A colleague recently asked why we're not using "iptables-restore" 
instead of the script which does "stop/start".  I'm looking to see if 
you know of any reasons why we should or should not use iptables-restore 
vs. "stop/start".  Does it matter if the number of connections on the 
system is high?  Our product can sometimes handle many millions of 
connections per day.

Thanks.

...alex...