Re: [gentoo-user] Re: iptables - do I need the nat table?

2010-04-15 Thread Mick
On Monday 12 April 2010 13:31:09 Tanstaafl wrote: On 2010-04-11 9:20 AM, Graham Murray wrote: Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org writes: I'm a bit clueless when it comes to firewalls, and have no idea what these numbers mean/do: *raw :PREROUTING ACCEPT [4911:886011] :OUTPUT

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: iptables - do I need the nat table?

2010-04-12 Thread Tanstaafl
On 2010-04-11 9:20 AM, Graham Murray wrote: Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org writes: I'm a bit clueless when it comes to firewalls, and have no idea what these numbers mean/do: *raw :PREROUTING ACCEPT [4911:886011] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [4546:2818732] COMMIT The numbers are [packets:bytes]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: iptables - do I need the nat table?

2010-04-12 Thread stosss
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2010-04-11 9:20 AM, Graham Murray wrote: Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org writes: I'm a bit clueless when it comes to firewalls, and have no idea what these numbers mean/do: *raw :PREROUTING ACCEPT

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: iptables - do I need the nat table?

2010-04-11 Thread Tanstaafl
On 2010-04-10 10:26 PM, Kerin Millar wrote: On 10/04/2010 23:17, Tanstaafl wrote: This is on a server box, and I am *not* doing NAT on it... Do I even need the nat table? If not, I'd like to build the kernel without NAT support, but if there's a good reason not to do that, I won't... If

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: iptables - do I need the nat table?

2010-04-11 Thread Graham Murray
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org writes: I'm a bit clueless when it comes to firewalls, and have no idea what these numbers mean/do: *raw :PREROUTING ACCEPT [4911:886011] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [4546:2818732] COMMIT The numbers are [packets:bytes] which match the rule or table concerned.