On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 06:50:32PM -0700, Bob Nielsen wrote: > Now hold on there just a darn minute-- > > In one sentence, you say that he doesn't want to have both, but in That's right. > another you acknowledge that ipmasq depends on ipfwadm or ipchains or > iptables. That's right, too. And what is the contradiction here? It depends on what he wants to do. ipfwadm, ipchains and iptables are totally independent from ipmasq. But it *could* be of advantage to use ipmasq, espacially for dial-up connections > Thus if he wants to use ipmasq he needs one of these. > ipfwadm is for 2.0 (and earlier) kernels, ipchains is for 2.2 and > iptables is for 2.4. > > The ipmasq package is not *REQUIRED* to set up MASQ rules, but is a > tool which simplifies the process. I totally agree. > I suspect one could set up firewalling chains without the ipchains > package by writing to /proc, but that would probably be a bit difficult > to administer by hand. In deed, it would. MfG/Regards, Willi -- ...is a registered (#210445) user of:####Debian 2.2r2 GNU/Linux icq# 49564994###AIM: wdyck###########GnuPG-Key: 1024D/8BFCA69B Fingerprint: DAD2 E564 B725 E6A3 5A0F 1497 4411 F30F 8BFC A69B
Attachment:
pgpjB9J82O3e1.pgp
Description: PGP signature