No, that's not the case. I'm still thinking that's a bug.
[root@ward] [10:18:30]
[~]#iptables -t nat -N 123456789012345678901234567890
[root@ward] [10:18:38]
[~]#iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j 1234567890123456789012345678
iptables v1.3.2: Couldn't load target
`1234567890123456789012345678':/usr/local/lib/iptables/libipt_1234567890123456789012345678.so: cannot open shared object
file: No such file or directory
Try `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for more information.
[root@ward] [10:18:41]
[~]#
Any idea?
Thank 's
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
So, that's a BUG.
Why iptbles let me add a chain with 30 characters, if I can't use this chain?
[root@ward] [10:07:54]
[~]#iptables -t nat -N 123456789012345678901234567890
[root@ward] [10:08:05]
[~]#iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j 123456789012345678901234567890
iptables: No chain/target/match by that name
Try
iptables -t nat -N 123456789012345678901234567890
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j 1234567890123456789012345678
(Maybe add a '9' to the last.) If that's the case, then this is not really a
bug, but some code silently truncates the -N request.
Jan Engelhardt
--
Rafael Dreher
-:: Red Hat Certified Engineer ::-
-:: Nr: 807303498507617 ::-
http://www.redhat.com/training/certification/verify
