On January 2, 2004 10:13 am, bmcdowell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Actually, couldn't this be just a 2.6.x change? (I never saw the rules go > by...) I thought I saw a message go by earlier to that effect. Something > about the syntax and needing '--physdev' and '-i' both, or something? > > I could search the archives, I guess, but instead I suggest Gonya give that > a go. > Userspace tools need to be recompiled from 2.4.x kenels to 2.6.0 I got weird results switching. Recompile fixed the problems. Alistair > > Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: netfilter-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:netfilter-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Antony Stone > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 8:03 AM > To: netfilter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [despammed] -i and -o options for iptables FORWARD chain > > On Friday 02 January 2004 1:30 pm, Andreas Kretschmer wrote: > > am Wed, dem 31.12.2003, um 15:36:34 -0800 mailte Gongya Yu folgendes: > > > Hi, I just updated Linux kernel to 2.6.0 with iptables and ebtables > > > enabled. > > > > I'm using iptables on 2.4.x, possible there are differences with 2.6.x. > > > > > But iptables ignores -i and -o options for FORWARD chain. Wheneneve I > > > use something like -i eth0 or -o eth0, the rule is just ignored. > > > > RTFM! > > > > -i is only for INPUT, FORWARD and PREROUTING > > -o is only for FORWARD, OUTPUT and POSTROUTING > > Are you suggesting that -i and -o cannot be used in FORWARD? As far as I > can see the syntax of the rule Gonya posted is perfectly okay. > > Antony.
