On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 19:33 +0200, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:45:57 -0500
> Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 15:22 +0200, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote:
> > > Yep. That's how it should be according to your iptables dump. I never
> > > fighted with ipkungfu, but I think the LOCAL_NET configuration opens
> > > the door for the given network. At least that's how I interpret that
> > > comment there that says you should enter loopback network data if not
> > > sure. You probably should really do that.
> > 
> > I've configured it this way because the IP address of each of my
> > computers will be changing once I get this firewall thing working.  I'll
> > try that though.
> 
> Well, I meant: Networks listed in LOCAL_NET are probably _meant_ to
> have full access. So what you describe is essentially a misconception
> about what LOCAL_NET does configure. And since there is a comment in
> the ipkungfu config file that says you should enter 127.0.0.1 there, I
> guess it is meant to generally allow traffic. And you'll probably want
> to allow 127.0.0.1 anyway (if not even 127.0.0.0/8). That configuration
> seems to end up in the iptables INPUT section right before a catch-all
> that drops all other traffic, and that really makes me think that
> everything is working fine, just as configured. Probably changing it to
> the suggested "127.0.0.1" will "fix" the issue.
> 
> -hwh

What if I wanted 70.234.122.249, 70.234.122.250, and 70.234.122.251 as
the network.  What would the syntax for those three be?  I've never been
able to figure out what the 127.0.0.1/8 syntax means... 

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Reply via email to