On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 12:05:40PM +0200, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
Hi,
It is a strange idea I know, but I'd be interested in what the opinion of
the core netfilter developers is on porting the whole netfilter subsystem to
Solaris?
After my netfilter presentation at linuxtag, somebody was
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 12:47:07PM +0200, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
But how do you imagine the porting so that the maintenance would not
become a nightmare?
Of course I'd want to provide system independency using some headers which
would make it work on both Linux/Solaris, so it could be
Hello,
I am writing options to the unclean module, so that we can:
-m unclean --tcp, -m unclean ! --udp, etc.
I have the kernelspace additions written.
The userspace libipt_unclean.c need rewriting, and here i come across a
problem:
i do not know what all the functions and variables there mean.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 02:55:30PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 12:47:07PM +0200, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
As long as I am one of the maintainers of netfilter/iptables, I am not
going to do any extra hassle in order to support different operating systems.
This includes
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 03:37:25PM +0200, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 02:52:12PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 12:05:40PM +0200, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
Hi,
It is a strange idea I know, but I'd be interested in what the opinion of
the core
I noticed in
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/Joseph.Mack/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO-3.html#conntrack
reports that conntrack is a bottleneck.
section 1
Here's a summary of some experiments that show this is true and
further suggest that the real expense is in creating new conntrack
records. If
we use linux as the firewall. we have a web server,as we made a DNAT rule on the
firewall,the people can visit it from internet by address 202.38.128.1(just a
example,not real).
(202.38.128.1)
internet--firewalllocalhost
|
