Re: NAT appears to be unaware of ports in use on router

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

 



On 20 July 2010 20:05, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It happens not to.

Ah good :)

>>-A POSTROUTING -p udp -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE --to-ports 6000-50000
>>-A POSTROUTING -p tcp -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE --to-ports 6000-50000
>>-A POSTROUTING ! -p tcp ! -p udp -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE
>
> At most one -p option is allowed.
>

Thanks, wasn't sure and without the linux box to hand wasn't certain.


-- 
Richard Horton
Users are like a virus: Each causing a thousand tiny crises until the
host finally dies.
http://www.pbase.com/arimus - My online photogallery
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/richardhorton1972 - My linkedin profile
http://www.solstans.co.uk/richard - Online CV
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[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