similar to: [Bug 1233] New: Problem with import of small iptables rule sets with multiport match

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1329 Bug ID: 1329 Summary: flush set not working: "Could not process rule: Invalid argument" Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P5

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1160 Bug ID: 1160 Summary: dnat ip address not shown in nft list output when using port value Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Fedora Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: nft

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1168 Bug ID: 1168 Summary: type nat hook output doesn't work anymore Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: kernel Assignee: pablo at netfilter.org

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1187 Bug ID: 1187 Summary: SIGABRT: "BUG: unknown expression type prefix" Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: All Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P5 Component: nft Assignee: pablo at

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1155 Bug ID: 1155 Summary: arp forward filter doesn't work Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: kernel Assignee: pablo at netfilter.org

The host and guest currently enumerate ports independently. This can lead to problems after several hot-plug/unplug operations and migrations. The fix is to let the management software instantiate ports at fixed locations and the host lets the guest know which 'id' to add a new port to. Since this is an intrusive change, and we don't want to support the current ABI, disable

The host and guest currently enumerate ports independently. This can lead to problems after several hot-plug/unplug operations and migrations. The fix is to let the management software instantiate ports at fixed locations and the host lets the guest know which 'id' to add a new port to. Since this is an intrusive change, and we don't want to support the current ABI, disable

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=451 Summary: ip6tables port range support in multiport modules is broken Product: iptables Version: unspecified Platform: i386 OS/Version: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ip6tables

If we're using multiport, there's no point in always creating a console port. Create the console port only if the host doesn't support multiport. Signed-off-by: Amit Shah <amit.shah at redhat.com> --- drivers/char/virtio_console.c | 32 +++++++++++++++----------------- 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c

If we're using multiport, there's no point in always creating a console port. Create the console port only if the host doesn't support multiport. Signed-off-by: Amit Shah <amit.shah at redhat.com> --- drivers/char/virtio_console.c | 32 +++++++++++++++----------------- 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c

Hi Folks: I am either using the multiport of the -m or --match option of iptables in correctly or there is a bug with it. Is anyone else using it with no problem? This is the way I am trying to use it: my_ports=21,25,80 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i $wan_addr -p tcp -m multiport --dports $my_ports -j DNAT --to $my_internal_address I have used this in the past successfully but that was a

The 1.2.7 release of iptables has made an incompatible change in the syntax used to specify multiport matches. As a consequence, users upgrading to iptables 1.2.7 must set MULTIPORT=No in /etc/shorewall/shorewall.conf. I''ll have an updated firewall script available in the next day or two. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Shorewall - iptables made easy AIM: tmeastep \

Does the voicetronix card work with Asterisk? -----Original Message----- From: asterisk-users-admin@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-admin@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of woody+asterisk@solutionsfirst.com.au Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 11:06 PM To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Pictures of new multiport FXO/FXS from digum > -----Original Message-----

Unfortunately there proved to be at least one bug which requires an ABI change, so we're best off not introducing multiport support until 2.6.35. While I generally left the multiport code paths intact, I really wanted to remove the ABI defines from the header, which meant some quite deep cuts. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> To: Amit Shah <amit.shah at

Unfortunately there proved to be at least one bug which requires an ABI change, so we're best off not introducing multiport support until 2.6.35. While I generally left the multiport code paths intact, I really wanted to remove the ABI defines from the header, which meant some quite deep cuts. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> To: Amit Shah <amit.shah at

hot to asterisk multiport...??? example 5060, 5061, 5080 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20070815/8a515309/attachment.htm

On 05.11.2015 09:18, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 10:21 +0100, Stefan Pietsch wrote: >> On 30.10.2015 22:13, Jeremy Allison wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:27:55AM +0100, Stefan Pietsch wrote: >>>> Dear Samba users and developers, >>>> >>>> we had the idea of storing S/MIME certificates in the Samba 4 >>>>

Hi! I do a rsync between 2 machines. The throughput is only 2 MByte/Sec. Each machine is a Supermicro server with 2 x 8 Core Opteron 6128 64 GByte of ECC RAM 1 LSI MegaRAID SAS 9280-24i4e 24 x 2TByte SATA Disks as a RAID6 2 Intel Corporation 82599EB 10-Gigabit SFI/SFP+ Network-cards Both run Ubuntu 11.04 64Bit. Both use rsync version 3.0.7 protocol version 30 There are no

On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 10:21 +0100, Stefan Pietsch wrote: > On 30.10.2015 22:13, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:27:55AM +0100, Stefan Pietsch wrote: > > > Dear Samba users and developers, > > > > > > we had the idea of storing S/MIME certificates in the Samba 4 > > > LDAP. > > > In the Windows Active Directory Users and

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=447 Summary: iptables doesn't support multiple times the same match in one rule Product: iptables Version: 1.3.5 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P2 Component: iptables AssignedTo: