> >>Ok, I've fixed the problem: it seems that the address 0.0.0.0 is no good. > > > > > > You are certainly very unlikely to receive packets from that address, as it > > does not exist. > > Well, I'm not a firewall guru, but I think that 0.0.0.0 address is often > used to indicate "every address", isn't it? Neither am I ;o). I overlooked that one too. 0.0.0.0 = 0.0.0.0/32. 0.0.0.0 as a host does not exist. What you meant is 0.0.0.0/0, which is the same as not specifying it. Gr, Rob
