Hi Why are you still using ipchains? Ray On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 13:07, gARetH baBB wrote: > Has anyone else had serious problems with 2.4.23 death when using ipchains > and masquerading ? > > I've had two boxes die with a panic as soon as they tried to do any form > of masq, going back to .22 results in happiness. > > One box is essentially a Slackware 8.1 base, and the other 9.0. > > Both have similar ipchains rules. > > The 8.1 box is my test box and I upgraded to .23 on it and everything was > fine, it shifted over 4G of non-masq data during the day and showed no > problems. > > I then upgraded the 9.0 box to .23, and it died within seconds of > networking going with a panic. > > Whilst I investigated what was going on I shited the routing so the 8.1 > box did masq for the internal network. Not immediately, but within minutes > that box too paniced. Rebooting the 8.1 box resulted in panic pretty much > in the same way as the 9.0 box. > > I put both back to .22 and sanity was restored. > > I notes lots of changes in the .23 patch to the masq code and network code > in general. > > Anyone else seen these problems ? [though I presume most of you are using > iptables and this *could* be ipchains specific] -- -- Raymond Leach <raymondl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Network Support Specialist http://www.knowledgefactory.co.za "lynx -source http://www.rchq.co.za/raymondl.asc | gpg --import" Key fingerprint = 7209 A695 9EE0 E971 A9AD 00EE 8757 EE47 F06F FB28 --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
