On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 12:13, Jan Kaastrup wrote: > Hi list > I have search google for this error most of my weekend, and I cannot get > the answer :( > I have upgraded my kernel to 2.6.1 and made all the iptables stuff as > modules. > I can load all modules by hand perfectly, but still i get this error: > #Iptables -L > iptables v1.2.9: can't initialize iptables table `filter': Table does > not exist (do you need to insmod?) > Perhaps iptables or your kernel needs to be upgraded. > The 'filter' table does not exist by default, but the 'FILTER' table does. Is this a user chain than you created? > I have reinstalled iptables and done depmod -a > I have installed module-init-tools-2.0-pre10 > > It seems like it cannot mount modules automaticly, any ideas? > Which modules should absolutly be loaded, to make iptables work? > Could it be, that i am missing a > iptables-need-to-be-installed-to-make-iptables-work-for-kernel-2.6.x-pac > ket? > > Thanks a lot > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: netfilter-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:netfilter-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Antony Stone > Sent: 13. februar 2004 18:13 > To: netfilter > Subject: Re: Routing problem > > > On Friday 13 February 2004 4:30 pm, Carlos Fernandez Sanz wrote: > > > > > Before you ask: I can't connect this special computer to the same > place > > > > I connect the linux box (which would be the obvious solution) > because > > > > the carrier expects traffic to come from one WAN IP, owned by the > linux > > > > box. > > > > > > How do they expect you to use any of the other IPs in the pool they > have > > > given you? > > > > I do use them by redirecting traffic from the linux box to the > destination > > boxes (such as all trafic for public IP 2 goes to 192.168.21.2, for > > example). This works fine, *except* in this particular case, where any > > NATing is not an option. I need the computer behind the linux box to > > actually own the public address, because it signs packets with it. > > I still don't understand. One of your above statements must be > incorrect: > > - either the ISP requires all your outgoing traffic to come from a > single > public address, > > - or you can send traffic from IP1, IP2, IP3 etc as you wish. > > If the first is true (you have to send all traffic from just a single > address) > then I don't see how you can do NAT from IP2 to 192.168.21.2, because > the > reply packets going back out to the Internet are going to have the > source > address (after de-NATting) of IP2 - therefore you *are* being allowed to > send > from more than one public IP. > > If the second is true (you can send from IP1, IP2, IP3 etc as you wish) > then > as you said in the first place, you can connect the user who wants to > use > some nasty protocol which embeds OSI layer 3 information into OSI layer > 7 > traffic to the same place as your existing Linux box and give them a > real > public IP of their own. > > What does your ISP claim will happen if you use more than one of your > assigned > pool of IP addresses for the source address of outgoing traffic? > > Antony. -- -- 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
