On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 04:25:07PM +0100, Gwenael Letellier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question about how Netfilter DNAT handles TTL. From a previous
> experience, I believed NetFilter would not decrement TTLs when routing
> DNATed packets.
This sentence already explains why we do it: We are ro
2002-03-11 16:25:07+0100, Gwenael Letellier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ->
> Hi,
>
> I have a question about how Netfilter DNAT handles TTL. From a previous
> experience, I believed NetFilter would not decrement TTLs when routing
> DNATed packets.
>
> That would mean that, on the basis of TTLs, a NATed
I have found another case which lead me to believe NetFilter had a smarter
understanding of DNAT and TTLs.
Here is the traceroute :
[root@gw /root]# hping2 -t 1 -S -T -p 25 -n 112.280.213.227
1->TTL 0 during transit from 61.5.6.2
2->TTL 0 during transit from 61.5.6.5
3->TTL 0 during transit from
Hi,
I have a question about how Netfilter DNAT handles TTL. From a previous
experience, I believed NetFilter would not decrement TTLs when routing
DNATed packets.
That would mean that, on the basis of TTLs, a NATed server would seem to
stand at the same level than its public IP address (e.g., s
