From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Darrell Dieringer" Subject: RE: pptp and nat Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:12:40 -0500 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: References: <200209240346.g8O3kBl06609@brooks.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200209240346.g8O3kBl06609@brooks.nu> 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: Lane Brooks , netfilter@lists.netfilter.org Hello, Others are certain to have more experince with PPTP that I do. However, if you believe it is a rules-related problem (as in some packets needed by PPTP are getting blocked), make sure you have a LOGging line before every DROP rule (or at the end of chains with a default DROP policy). There may very well be a PPTP helper module that you need, though. I don't know since I haven't tried to use PPTP through netfilter myself. I only brought up the LOG/DROP scenario since you hadn't mentioned checking the logs for problems. D > -----Original Message----- > From: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org > [mailto:netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org]On Behalf Of Lane Brooks > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 10:46 PM > To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org > Subject: pptp and nat > > > > I have a linux firewall/nat server that is working well > using iptables. I also > have a pptp client on this machine (ppp0). The internal network is > 192.169.0/24 on eth0 and the internet is on eth1. NAT is > working fine for > everything except the pptp connection. The pptp connection > works fine from > the firewall machine, but nothing on the internal network > can talk through it. > I used to have ipchains on kernal 2.2, and internal > computers could talk fine > through the pptp connection, so I am thinking I need to add > something more to > my iptable rules. Any ideas or help? My routing table is > exactly the same as > that which used to work on ipchains with the older kernel, > so I dont think it > is that. > > Thanks > Lane Brooks > > > >