Re: nftables compatibility

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

 



Le 02/12/2014 23:15, Eric Leblond a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 2014-12-02 at 23:09 +0100, Jean-Philippe Menil wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> while playing with nftables, i observe that my iptables masquerading do not
>> work anymore:
>>
>> modprobe nft_nat
>> modprobe nft_chain_nat_ipv4
>> nft add table nat
>> nft add chain nat postrouting { type nat hook postrouting priority 0 \; }
>>
>> ^^ iptables nat stoped work here.
>>
>> I'm sure i read that nftables and iptables  where compatible.
>>
>> Can anyone point me what am i missing ?
>>
>> (I'm on 3.17.4)
> 
> Sadly, masquerade is requiring 3.18. Only standard NAT is implemented in
> 3.17.x.
> 
> BR,
> 
Hi Eric,

thanks for your response.

I've see on the wiki that masquerading require a 3.18 kernel.

But why juste adding the type nat hook with nftables, broke the iptables
masquerading?

There's no problem at all, i will upgrade to 3.18 for my tests.

Best regards.
--
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