similar to: [Bug 48] conntrack breaks udp path mtu discovery

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48 ------- Additional Comments From tatonet@tiscali.it 2004-02-25 15:05 ------- I know that this is an old bug report, but it's still opened... If we save the size of each single fragment we have to face another problem: how should we re-fragment the packet if original fragments were partially or totally overlapped?

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |netfilter at linuxace.com AssignedTo|kaber at trash.net |netfilter-buglog at lists.netf

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55 laforge@netfilter.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |2 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org

Poking around in the bridge latency issue I have, I discovered this netfilter patch. http://patchwork.netfilter.org/netfilter-devel/patch.pl?id=2751 In my case I was getting a slew of ip_local_deliver: bad skb: PRE_ROUTING LOCAL_IN LOCAL_OUT POST_ROUTING entries. I didn''t see this on the list so I posted for reference. Regards, Ted

Normally, if the tinc server’s MTU discovery response can reach the tinc client side, they always can negotiate with a certain MTU size, but the case is, sometimes, the client sent variety size of MTU probe packet to server, but the server never respond. Sometimes, if I change the client side’s tinc port, the server’s MTU response can received by client. BTW, the above case are all regarding

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59 laforge@netfilter.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47 ------- Additional Comments From dg@ezcom.de 2003-06-30 16:17 ------- today i replaced my 8139too with a 3c59x and the corruptions are gone ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64 laforge@netfilter.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org 2003-03-16 09:36 ------- you seem to be running a

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47 ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org 2003-02-14 09:14 ------- did you load iptable_nat at the time the problem with wrong-destip does happen? ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49 ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org 2003-02-14 08:39 ------- what patches from patch-o-matic do you use? Do you know how to reproduce this behaviour? ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56 Summary: super-long erroneous timeouts in conntrack table (semantics of list_del() change) Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.4.x Platform: other URL: http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter-

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=612 Summary: conntrack returns src, dst, dport and sport all zeroed Product: libnfnetlink Version: unspecified Platform: i386 OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P1 Component: libnfnetlink AssignedTo: laforge at netfilter.org

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91 ------- Additional Comments From kaber@trash.net 2003-06-16 00:38 ------- problem seems to be a dropped reference in remove_expectations, can be reproduced by unloading ip_conntrack after unloading a helper which is helping a connection. Attached patch fixes my problems. ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41 Summary: pptp-conntrack-nat and sparc64 structures/padding/maskcomp bug Product: netfilter/iptables Version: patch-o-matic Platform: sparc64 OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: connection

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59 Summary: sparc64 conntrack issue with expecting related connections, FTP Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.4.x Platform: sparc64 OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component:

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=610 Summary: conntrack doesn't work Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.6.x Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P1 Component: unknown AssignedTo: laforge at netfilter.org ReportedBy: urykhy at

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64 ------- Additional Comments From tobias@portfolio16.de 2003-04-21 23:51 ------- Hi, I think I just found a problem with the patch... It was my fault to use a automatic build system and not check it... In the end the patch didn't apply in its whole and I didn't discover it, because the build system just went on.

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40 laforge@netfilter.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org

Hi! The netfilter project proudly presents: libnfnetlink-0.0.10 libnfnetlink_conntrack-0.0.10 conntrack-0.81 Each of those three releases is the first official release of the respective project. They're the counterparts to the first pieces of the "next generation" netfilter subsystem that will be present in the 2.6.14 linux kernel release. libnfnetlink is the low-level

Hello all, My question: - - - - - - - Does anybody know when the reverse path filtering occurs as the packet traverses the kernel? Does it happen before NF_IP_PRE_ROUTING (PREROUTING) or not? Does it only happen at route selection time? What I have tried to do to find the answer: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I find a posting (from many years ago) [0], which suggests that this