> You may possibly be right about not needing the capabilities of iptables, but > what do I when I take your advice, and then encounter the same problems when > I "graduate," to 2.4? >
Stay with 2.2. I have. No problems to date. Half of my office Sparcs still run 2.2 kernel. And my home firewall is still running 2.2 kernel, including wireless lan support. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Coates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Nick Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 11:51 PM Subject: Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: [suse-sparc] Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Freeswan and SuSE Sparc Linux > Quoting Nick Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Any particular reason why you need the 2.4 kernel for your firewall duties? > > For "simple" firewall duties, the 2.2 kernels with IPCHAINS work very well. > > > > You only need iptables if you're doing complicated "stateful" firewalling. > > Simple keeping intruders out and your inside connections getting internet > > sharing doesn't require such complexity. I'd suggest rolling to 2.2 kernel, > > getting it all to work (so you know your configuration is all good), then > > try to "graduate" up to 2.4 kernel and new compile of Freeswan. > > > > Just a thought. > > You may possibly be right about not needing the capabilities of iptables, but > what do I when I take your advice, and then encounter the same problems when > I "graduate," to 2.4? > > Ed > > ------------------------------------------------- > This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
