Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "tun_fwd".
Did you mean:
tun_fd
2006 Aug 29
7
[Bug 507] tun99 don't trapped by tun+
https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=507
kaber@trash.net changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
------- Additional Comments From kaber@trash.net 2006-08-29
2003 Nov 05
0
Bug? wildcard interfaces not accepted in fwd chain
...ntries:
loc tun0 detect routeback,newnotsyn
loc tun1 detect routeback,newnotsyn
loc tun2 detect routeback,newnotsyn
and
loc tun+ detect routeback,newnotsyn
do not seem to be equivalent because the latter won''t create a rule
in the "tun_fwd" chain allowing traffic between different tun interfaces.
Explicitly specifying each tun interface (as in the former example) will
cause ACCEPT rules to be generated:
Chain tun0_fwd (1 references)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
...
0...
2006 Aug 28
0
[Bug 507] New: tun99 don't trapped by tun+
...anuelly added tun99 to trap the packets:
[root@perack ~]# iptables -L FORWARD -v
Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 4 packets, 366 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
677K 448M eth0_fwd all -- eth0 any anywhere anywhere
417K 452M tun_fwd all -- tun+ any anywhere anywhere
294 34569 tun99_fwd all -- tun99 any anywhere anywhere
1600 696K eth1_fwd all -- eth1 any anywhere anywhere
244K 67M eth3_fwd all -- eth3 any anywhere anywhere
0 0...