Re: IP Chains question - under 2.4.x

Alvin Oga wrote: hi ya i donno what all the major features/advances of iptables is over ipchains..but... ipchains runs under 2.4.x kernels if you enable the "ipchains" modules in the firewall config section of the kernel - ipchains runs unmodified under 2.4... if you are using a gener

Re: IP Chains question - under 2.4.x

hi ya i donno what all the major features/advances of iptables is over ipchains..but... ipchains runs under 2.4.x kernels if you enable the "ipchains" modules in the firewall config section of the kernel - ipchains runs unmodified under 2.4... if you are using a generic 2.4.x kernel wit

Re: IP Chains question

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, David Gardi wrote: > > I've just switched to 2.4.x on my laptop, and it was painless. I'm about > > to do the same on a desktop that runs a firewall using my old original > > ipfwadm rules, which are magically translated by debian (potato/2.2.x) > > into (i think) ipchains. >

Re: IP Chains question

Rick Macdonald wrote: On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Eric G. Miller wrote: On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:08:45 -0500 (EST), Matt Kopishke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have set up a firewall using ipchains and the bridge patch (bridgein) under potato (2.2.19). The one snag I had was although the firewall

Re: IP Chains question

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Eric G. Miller wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:08:45 -0500 (EST), Matt Kopishke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > I have set up a firewall using ipchains and the bridge patch > > (bridgein) under potato (2.2.19). The one snag I had was although the > > firewall works well

Re: IP Chains question

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:08:45 -0500 (EST), Matt Kopishke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have set up a firewall using ipchains and the bridge patch > (bridgein) under potato (2.2.19). The one snag I had was although the > firewall works well only letting the world see certain ports (80 & 443), > i