Over at the IEEE 802, we are voting ballots on wording that can be
interpreted on way with the Webster dictionary and another with the
Oxford dictionary.
So I am right about iptables controlling routing and you are right about
iptables NOT controlling routing, only influencing it. What does
'control' mean in this context? IEEE is really big on state machines and
truly covers the transfer of 'control' from one layer to another. Look
at the MLME in 802.11. Look at the 802.1X machines. So since I have to
live this control architecture and work in live debates about what layer
is controling what, I have a particular language set.
Kernel routing code makes decision, iptables can influence that decision. :P
BTW, should we table this debate? Webster says that means stopping,
'taking the subject off the table.' Oxford says that means to start,
'placing the subject on the table.' Boy did we have some moments back in
the mid-90s with the ISO crowd descended on the IETF. Also can we reach
a concensus here? Webster will accept a majority, Oxford wants complete
agreement. (Or at least that is what these sources said back in the
mid-90s when we lived Bernard Shaw's line of: 'Two nations separated by
a common language')
^O^
:)
Now I have to hop over to the Asterisk list to figure why with one
firewall the INVITE properly redirects the RTP to the RTP server, and
the with the other firewall this is not in the INVITE so the RTP flow
does not..... ARGH!!!!!
I hope you are not trying to get around a double nat situation. client
-> nat <-> nat <- asterisk.
I never managed to get things to work in that scenario. I have a vpn
setup to get things to work.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
