| To: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Kernel 2.6 IPV6 Busted |
| From: | Tomasz Torcz <zdzichu@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 1 Mar 2005 21:46:15 +0100 |
| In-reply-to: | <422497BA.9090606@xxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <200502270928.44402.Info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200502271410.39611.Info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050227133517.578884df.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200503011207.34029.vda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <422497BA.9090606@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.4i |
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). -- Tomasz Torcz "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station zdzichu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wagon filled with backup tapes." -- Jim Gray |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Lse-tech] Re: A common layer for Accounting packages, Paul Jackson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: (usagi-users 03226) Re: support of IPv6 by NFS, Elliott Mitchell |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Kernel 2.6 IPV6 Busted, Jeff Garzik |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Kernel 2.6 IPV6 Busted, Quantum Scientific |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |