Hi,
I keep hearing this (and this is a simple
example of why iptables appears to be
better) but has anyone got a link or a
reasonably detailed opinion of why iptables
is better and the differences between
ipchains and iptables?
I know ipchains is on the out so you don't
have much choice, but why did they just
scrap it and create iptables from scratch?
I will move on to iptables soon (my firewall
is somewhat complex with over 300 rules in
it, so I haven't found the time yet to do it)
but I have looked around for a comparison
and really found none yet.
-Cheers
-Andrew Smith
> From: "Jan Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 9:17 PM
>
>> There is no ip_masq_ftp.o module with the RH 2.4 kernels.
>>
>> How does one pass ftp connections with kernel 2.4 ip masquerading
>> without resorting to iptables or passive ftp? Is there some
>> combination of modules that works?
>
> You don't, either switch to iptables or make due with the ipchains and
> none of those ip_masq modules. Iptables is better though and has more
> functionality.
>
> Mike
_______________________________________________
Seawolf-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/seawolf-list
