Re: no ssh on eth0

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Subject: Re: no ssh on eth0
From: Pascal Hambourg <pascal.mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:04:48 +0200
In-reply-to: <98ab1181f512c188a486f7e3667bb2c4@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Plouf !
References: <1154239260.5429.2.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87fygje700.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0607301343450.23827@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44CCA802.2090403@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <facccfbd353e38901017e6dee5a54a99@xxxxxxxxxxx> <44CCE712.4070907@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <98ab1181f512c188a486f7e3667bb2c4@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)

former03 | Baltasar Cevc a écrit :

You're right, of course - I thought of a firewall situation with NAT -


Why ? What is the difference with or without NAT ?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: no ssh on eth0
  - From: former03 | Baltasar Cevc

References:
- no ssh on eth0
  - From: varun
- Re: no ssh on eth0
  - From: Graham Murray
- Re: no ssh on eth0
  - From: Jan Engelhardt
- Re: no ssh on eth0
  - From: Pascal Hambourg
- Re: no ssh on eth0
  - From: former03 | Baltasar Cevc

Prev by Date: Re: no ssh on eth0
Next by Date: match 'account' in iptables 1.3.5
Previous by thread: Re: no ssh on eth0
Next by thread: Re: no ssh on eth0
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Netfilter Development] [Linux Kernel Networking Development] [Netem] [Berkeley Packet Filter] [Linux Kernel Development] [Advanced Routing & Traffice Control] [Bugtraq]

Powered by Linux