| To: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Kernel 2.6 IPV6 Busted |
| From: | Quantum Scientific <Info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 1 Mar 2005 17:55:55 -0600 |
| Helo: | PowerMAC |
| In-reply-to: | <20050301204615.GC15329@xxxxxx> |
| References: | <200502270928.44402.Info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <422497BA.9090606@xxxxxxxxx> <20050301204615.GC15329@xxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | KMail/1.7.1 |
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 14:46, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 11:26:34AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Just write sane firewall rules that don't allow incoming. > > Isn't this thread about non-working stateful firewalling? Specifically > situation where -m state --state RELATED or ESTABLISHED isn't allowin > any packets because there is no connection tracking? Without allowing > incoming packets there could be no 2-way communication (for UDP at > least). Right. Nor for any of the other protocols. No incoming packets. Carl Cook |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.6.10 and HTB dequeue bug, Tommy Christensen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Kernel 2.6 IPV6 Busted, Quantum Scientific |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Kernel 2.6 IPV6 Busted, Tomasz Torcz |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Kernel 2.6 IPV6 Busted, Denis Vlasenko |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |