On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 08:56:33AM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 06:29:34PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Well, it's NAT'ing it OK. Are you sure you have a rule like the
> > following:
> > iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
> > ?
> # iptables
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 04:08:43PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:08:00AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > That option seems to conflict with "ipfwadm (2.0-style) support".
> > > Preferably, I'd like to stay with friendly old ipfwadm rather than
> > > switching
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 07:47:30AM +, Paul Jakma wrote:
>
> uhmm... ICQ seems to work fine through connection tracking for me, so
> is there a need for a special ip_masq_icq module?
Certain features of ICQ, which require direct client to client connections,
don't work.
Please move further
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 07:47:30AM +, Paul Jakma wrote:
uhmm... ICQ seems to work fine through connection tracking for me, so
is there a need for a special ip_masq_icq module?
Certain features of ICQ, which require direct client to client connections,
don't work.
Please move further
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 04:08:43PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:08:00AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
That option seems to conflict with "ipfwadm (2.0-style) support".
Preferably, I'd like to stay with friendly old ipfwadm rather than
switching firewalling tools
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 08:56:33AM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 06:29:34PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
Well, it's NAT'ing it OK. Are you sure you have a rule like the
following:
iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
?
# iptables -A INPUT
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 06:29:34PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Well, it's NAT'ing it OK. Are you sure you have a rule like the
> following:
> iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
> ?
# iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
iptables: No
On 23 Jan 2001, Daniel Stone wrote:
[snip]
> > -:- DCC GET request from aaronl_[[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [64.81.36.147:33989]] 150 bytes /* That's the NAT box's IP */
> > -:- DCC Unable to create connection: Connection refused
> >
> > Any idea what's wrong? I have irc-conntrack-nat
On 23 Jan 2001, Daniel Stone wrote:
[snip]
-:- DCC GET request from aaronl_[[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[64.81.36.147:33989]] 150 bytes /* That's the NAT box's IP */
-:- DCC Unable to create connection: Connection refused
Any idea what's wrong? I have irc-conntrack-nat compiled into
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 06:29:34PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
Well, it's NAT'ing it OK. Are you sure you have a rule like the
following:
iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
?
# iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
iptables: No
On 22 Jan 2001 18:01:58 -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 12:48:20PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Those who berated Aaron for not wanting to upgrade: he is the Debian
> > maintainer for crashme, gtk-theme-switch, koules, pngcrush, and
> > xdaliclock. By wasting his time
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 12:48:20PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> So I reimplimented 2.2-style masquerading on top of the new NAT
> infrastructure: ideally this would mean that it could use the new
> helpers, but there were some minor technical problems, and it was
> never tested.
>
> Those who
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> It was great to see that 2.4.0 reintroduced ipfwadm support! I had no
> need for ipchains and ended up using the wrapper around it that
> emulated ipfwadm. However, 2.[02].x used to have "special IP
> masquerading modules" such as ip_masq_ftp.o,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
It was great to see that 2.4.0 reintroduced ipfwadm support! I had no
need for ipchains and ended up using the wrapper around it that
emulated ipfwadm. However, 2.[02].x used to have "special IP
masquerading modules" such as ip_masq_ftp.o,
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 12:48:20PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
So I reimplimented 2.2-style masquerading on top of the new NAT
infrastructure: ideally this would mean that it could use the new
helpers, but there were some minor technical problems, and it was
never tested.
Those who berated
On 22 Jan 2001 18:01:58 -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 12:48:20PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
Those who berated Aaron for not wanting to upgrade: he is the Debian
maintainer for crashme, gtk-theme-switch, koules, pngcrush, and
xdaliclock. By wasting his time making
On 21 Jan 2001, Daniel Stone wrote:
> FTP is under Connection Tracking support, FTP connection tracking. Does
> the same stuff as ip_masq_ftp. IRC is located in patch-o-matic -
> download iptables 1.2 and do a make patch-o-matic, there is also RPC and
> eggdrop support in there. I'm half in the
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> It was great to see that 2.4.0 reintroduced ipfwadm support! I had no
> need for ipchains and ended up using the wrapper around it that
> emulated ipfwadm. However, 2.[02].x used to have "special IP
> masquerading modules" such as ip_masq_ftp.o,
Aaron Lehmann wrote:
It was great to see that 2.4.0 reintroduced ipfwadm
support! I had no
need for ipchains and ended up using the wrapper around it that
emulated ipfwadm. However, 2.[02].x used to have "special IP
masquerading modules" such as ip_masq_ftp.o, ip_masq_quake.o, etc.
I
can't find
Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:08:00AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > "I'd rather stay with my friendly old pushbike than my car!"
> > So don't complain when you can't use cruise control.
>
> ipfwadm used to support the modules. Why have the modules for
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:08:00AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > That option seems to conflict with "ipfwadm (2.0-style) support".
> > Preferably, I'd like to stay with friendly old ipfwadm rather than
> > switching firewalling tools _again_.
>
> "I'd rather stay with my friendly old pushbike
On 20 Jan 2001 15:34:03 -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 10:32:15AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > FTP is under Connection Tracking support, FTP connection tracking. Does
> > the same stuff as ip_masq_ftp. IRC is located in patch-o-matic -
> > download iptables 1.2 and do a
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 10:32:15AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> FTP is under Connection Tracking support, FTP connection tracking. Does
> the same stuff as ip_masq_ftp. IRC is located in patch-o-matic -
> download iptables 1.2 and do a make patch-o-matic, there is also RPC and
> eggdrop support
FTP is under Connection Tracking support, FTP connection tracking. Does
the same stuff as ip_masq_ftp. IRC is located in patch-o-matic -
download iptables 1.2 and do a make patch-o-matic, there is also RPC and
eggdrop support in there. I'm half in the middle of porting ip_masq_icq,
but it's one
FTP is under Connection Tracking support, FTP connection tracking. Does
the same stuff as ip_masq_ftp. IRC is located in patch-o-matic -
download iptables 1.2 and do a make patch-o-matic, there is also RPC and
eggdrop support in there. I'm half in the middle of porting ip_masq_icq,
but it's one
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 10:32:15AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
FTP is under Connection Tracking support, FTP connection tracking. Does
the same stuff as ip_masq_ftp. IRC is located in patch-o-matic -
download iptables 1.2 and do a make patch-o-matic, there is also RPC and
eggdrop support in
On 20 Jan 2001 15:34:03 -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 10:32:15AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
FTP is under Connection Tracking support, FTP connection tracking. Does
the same stuff as ip_masq_ftp. IRC is located in patch-o-matic -
download iptables 1.2 and do a make
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:08:00AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
That option seems to conflict with "ipfwadm (2.0-style) support".
Preferably, I'd like to stay with friendly old ipfwadm rather than
switching firewalling tools _again_.
"I'd rather stay with my friendly old pushbike than my
Aaron Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:08:00AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
"I'd rather stay with my friendly old pushbike than my car!"
So don't complain when you can't use cruise control.
ipfwadm used to support the modules. Why have the modules for ipfwadm
Aaron Lehmann wrote:
It was great to see that 2.4.0 reintroduced ipfwadm
support! I had no
need for ipchains and ended up using the wrapper around it that
emulated ipfwadm. However, 2.[02].x used to have "special IP
masquerading modules" such as ip_masq_ftp.o, ip_masq_quake.o, etc.
I
can't find
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
It was great to see that 2.4.0 reintroduced ipfwadm support! I had no
need for ipchains and ended up using the wrapper around it that
emulated ipfwadm. However, 2.[02].x used to have "special IP
masquerading modules" such as ip_masq_ftp.o,
On 21 Jan 2001, Daniel Stone wrote:
FTP is under Connection Tracking support, FTP connection tracking. Does
the same stuff as ip_masq_ftp. IRC is located in patch-o-matic -
download iptables 1.2 and do a make patch-o-matic, there is also RPC and
eggdrop support in there. I'm half in the
32 matches
Mail list logo
