> On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:15 PM, Joe Stringer wrote:
>
> On 2 February 2017 at 17:10, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>> Stateful network admission policy may allow connections to one
>> direction and reject connections initiated in the other direction.
>> After policy change
On 7 February 2017 at 17:03, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:15 PM, Joe Stringer wrote:
>
> On 2 February 2017 at 17:10, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
> Stateful network admission policy may allow connections to one
> direction and reject
On 2 February 2017 at 17:10, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> Stateful network admission policy may allow connections to one
> direction and reject connections initiated in the other direction.
> After policy change it is possible that for a new connection an
> overlapping conntrack entry
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Joe Stringer wrote:
> On 6 February 2017 at 09:08, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>>> Stateful network admission policy may allow connections to one
>>> direction and
On 6 February 2017 at 09:08, Pravin Shelar wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>> Stateful network admission policy may allow connections to one
>> direction and reject connections initiated in the other direction.
>> After policy
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> Stateful network admission policy may allow connections to one
> direction and reject connections initiated in the other direction.
> After policy change it is possible that for a new connection an
> overlapping conntrack
Stateful network admission policy may allow connections to one
direction and reject connections initiated in the other direction.
After policy change it is possible that for a new connection an
overlapping conntrack entry already exist, where the connection
original direction is opposed to the new