On Friday 23 April 2004 9:13 pm, Joao TERRA wrote:
> He'll have to make some adjustments.. "-s !" maybe resolv.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Regards,
Antony.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Antony Stone" <Antony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <netfilter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: bytes counting
>
> > On Friday 23 April 2004 6:22 pm, Joao TERRA wrote:
> > > You can put the rule on:
> > > #iptables -t mangle -I POSTROUTING -o
>
> INTERFACE_OF_192.168.0.50_SUBNET -d
>
> > > 192.168.0.50
> > > then you can account in both directions separately
> >
> > Unfortunately this would count bytes going to 192.168.0.50 from anywhere
> > (including the other private LAN), not just from the Internet, which is
>
> what
>
> > was required, I believe.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Antony.
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Arrizabalaga, Saioa" <sarrizabalaga@xxxxxxx>
> > > To: <netfilter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 10:42 AM
> > > Subject: bytes counting
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > I have been reading some mails in this listing and it is said the best
> > > place to count bytes/packets is the mangle table, but I have a problem.
> > >
> > > I have three network cards in my linux box: eth0 (private LAN), eth1
> > > (private LAN) and eth2 (internet).
> > >
> > > I would like to count the bytes/packets from/to 192.168.0.50 (it is in
> > > eth0) that goes/comes to/from internet (eth2).
> > >
> > > These are the rules I have:
> > >
> > > iptables -A POSTROUTING -t mangle -o eth2 -s 192.168.0.50
> > >
> > > With this rule I catch all the packets going from 192.168.0.50 to eth2,
> > > but I know where to put the rule to catch the packets going from eth2
> > > to 192.168.0.50, because as far as I can see it, when I put the rule:
> > > iptables -A PREROUTING -t mangle -i eth2 -d 192.168.0.50 nothing is
> > > caught because the packet has not been SNAT-ed yet. Am I wrong?
> > >
> > > Any help would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Saioa Arrizabalaga
> >
> > --
> > This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s) named
>
> above
>
> > and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or
> > unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of
> > humour, or irrational religious beliefs.
> >
> > If you have received this email in error, you are required to shred it
> > immediately, add some nutmeg, three egg whites and a dessertspoonful of
> > caster sugar. Whisk until soft peaks form, then place in a warm oven
> > for
>
> 40
>
> > minutes. Remove promptly and let stand for 2 hours before adding some
> > decorative kiwi fruit and cream. Then notify me immediately by return
>
> email
>
> > and eat the original message.
> >
> > Please reply to the
>
> list;
>
> > please don't
> > CC
>
> me.
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world:
those who understand binary notation,
and those who don't.
Please reply to the list;
please don't CC me.
