Re: USB Networking vs. iptables

2008-09-20 Thread Christian Weßel
Am Freitag, den 19.09.2008, 16:06 -0400 schrieb Joel Newkirk: > You're most welcome. The one problem with your reasoning regarding the > default policy of ACCEPT is that the last rule in the RH-Firewall-1-INPUT > chain is a 'drop all' rule... Every RedHat/Fedora/CentOS box I've ever set > up nea

Re: USB Networking vs. iptables

2008-09-19 Thread Joel Newkirk
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:21:13 +, Christian Weßel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > iptables -I RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -s 192.168.0.202 -j ACCEPT > > That's it. Now I am able to install Debian by following wiki guide > > > Thanx a lot. > > Am Freitag, den 19

Re: USB Networking vs. iptables

2008-09-19 Thread Christian Weßel
iptables -I RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -s 192.168.0.202 -j ACCEPT That's it. Now I am able to install Debian by following wiki guide Thanx a lot. Am Freitag, den 19.09.2008, 07:35 -0400 schrieb Joel Newkirk: > Try "iptables -I RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -s 192.168.0

Re: USB Networking vs. iptables

2008-09-19 Thread Christian Weßel
Am Freitag, den 19.09.2008, 07:35 -0400 schrieb Joel Newkirk: > Try "iptables -I RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -s 192.168.0.202 -j ACCEPT", or the > same rule inserted at the top of INPUT and FORWARD chains. I will try. > RH-Firewall-1-INPUT blocks SSH from various specific IPs, then accepts > only very l

Re: USB Networking vs. iptables

2008-09-19 Thread Joel Newkirk
Try "iptables -I RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -s 192.168.0.202 -j ACCEPT", or the same rule inserted at the top of INPUT and FORWARD chains. Your FORWARD chain simply jumps to RH-Firewall-1-INPUT, the same as the INPUT chain. RH-Firewall-1-INPUT blocks SSH from various specific IPs, then accepts only ver

Re: USB Networking vs. iptables

2008-09-18 Thread Christian Weßel
Hello, first I correct the DNS address at the both DNATs at the server side: [EMAIL PROTECTED] backup]# iptables -L -t nat --line-numbers -n -v Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 2829 packets, 171K bytes) num pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 10 0

Re: USB Networking vs. iptables

2008-09-18 Thread Joel Newkirk
I notice that you list the DNS server as 212.6.108.140 (resolver0.ewetel.de), but have the DNAT rules pointing at 212.6.181.140 (an unnamed IP that seems to be owned by 'claranet')... Checking from the 'outside' (IE I'm not on your ISP's network, and I presume you are within the ewetel.de network)

Re: USB Networking vs. iptables

2008-09-18 Thread Dennis Ferron
Instead of this: tables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -s 192.168.0.202 -d 192.168.0.200 --dport domain -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.0.1 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp -s 192.168.0.202 -d 192.168.0.200 --dport domain -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.0.1 Did you do/would you try this (on yo

USB Networking vs. iptables

2008-09-18 Thread Christian Weßel
Hello mokos, I just have a DNS problem, I try to configure my FC6 following the guide http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/USB_Networking#Proxying_with_iptables because I have a simple static environment for my FR. FR.usb.ip = 192.168.0.202 server.usb.ip = 192.168.0.200 server.eth.ip = 192.168.1.10 rout