On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 00:33 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Saturday 2011-05-14 18:29, Andrew Beverley wrote: > > >On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 14:36 +0100, Ed W wrote: > > > >Okay, I've played around with this myself using a similar scenario. It > >looks to me like the packets *are* making it into the conntrack system. > > > >I tried setting a LOG target to match those packets with a ctstate of > >RELATED: > > > >iptables -A INPUT -p ICMP -m conntrack --ctstate RELATED -j LOG > > > >And they were indeed logged. But there was no visibility of them using > >the conntrack userspace program. > > Does `conntrack -L` show anything for you at all? Yes, it shows the outgoing packets: udp 17 23 src=10.0.10.206 dst=212.110.185.119 sport=35259 dport=53 packets=3 bytes=168 [UNREPLIED] src=212.110.185.119 dst=10.0.10.206 sport=53 dport=35259 packets=0 bytes=0 mark=0 secmark=0 use=2 But it doesn't show the "ICMP port unreachable" packets that are sent in reply. The question is: should it show them? > There is/was a > short intermediate time when it would not return anything. Do you mean there was a time when a particular version of conntrack would not return anything? Andy -- 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
