> > Good idea! But is it a Good Thing? mhhh... yes, it seems! > > Ok, as a definitive solution I'll do it and update to > You definitly don't have to update to iptables and 2.4 kernels > to NAT. Yes, but in the future...
> > By the way, I have to patch the kernel 2.2.17 (or 18 or 19) > > to do bridging, isnt'it? > You don't have to patch your kernel, however, if you didn't compiled > it yourself, enabling bridging, nat (and so on) modules needed, you > must recompile your kernel. For the moment, i don't use kernel-package > and kernel-sources-<version> to compile and install my kernel(s), but > it may (must ;-) be a good solution to begin (and to end ...). Last mounth I enabled bridge within a 2.2.19 (tar.gz) kernel and there was no 'bridge' chain in ipchains. The chain appared magically applying a linux_brfw_2.2.17.diff to the kernel and recompiling it... pheraphs I was wrong and that was not the point, I don't remember. > Last thing, i'm wondering why you need bridging ? I presume you are > making a mismatch between NAT and Ethernet-Bridging, which are significantly > different ... Well... a bridge is a /---\ on a river beetwen two networks... it has a learning algoritm to know who can traverse it. Howto said. A Nat is a way to redirect a packet to or from somewhere... They can both solve my problem, but pheraps Nat was designed for me. When I say Nat i mean "iptables nat" because is the only Nat I know under linux. Yes, what I'm going to do with a bridge could be seen as a Nat. Oooooo. And why I need bridging...? because I don't want to modify the router as my old good poor manager asked to me...! But he isn't crazy: he want a "portable" security sistem for similar networks he manage. > You should take a look to kernel docs and read a little > about bridging I hope understanding it well! :) Bye, Marco Marco Tassinari +039 328 1187801 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.taffi.it