Re: iptables script review

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dave Ewart wrote:

>On Monday, 25.07.2005 at 16:27 +1200, Adam Bogacki wrote:
>
>>>>>INET_IP="192.168.0.1"
>>>>>INET_IFACE="eth0"
>>>>>INET_BROADCAST="192.168.0.100"
>>>>>
>>>>>LAN_IP="192.168.0.2"
>>>>>LAN_IP_RANGE="192.168.0.0/16"
>>>>>LAN_IFACE="eth1"
>>>
>>>Well, that looks wrong for a start. The IP addresses and ranges on your
>>>INET interface and LAN interface overlap, which is Bad and Wrong. The
>>>broadcast address is also spurious.
>>>
>>>What IP addresses and net-masks are actually allocated to eth0 and eth1?
>>>Perhaps show us the output of 'ifconfig'?
>>
>>Output of 'ifconfig' below.
>>
>>Adam.
>
>
>Adam, please reply on list, do not CC people on list messages.
>
>>Tux:~# ifconfig
>>eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:CC:D9:E2:48
>> inet addr:203.79.110.81 Bcast:203.79.110.255
>>Mask:255.255.255.0
>
>
>Well - there you are. Above is your eth0 IP address. You should
>correct your script to include 203.79.110.81 as your eth0 address and,
>as seen below, eth1 is 192.168.0.1 ...
>
>>[...]
>>
>>eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:CC:D9:C7:6F
>> inet addr:192.168.0.1 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
>>[...]
>
>
>Dave.
>
Apologies, I've picked up bad habits from other lists.

Iptables now allows me to connect to the internet and do debian things
and I feel a bit more secure.

Do

>INET_BROADCAST="192.168.0.100"

and

>LAN_IP_RANGE="192.168.0.0/16"

still make sense ?

Thanks,

Adam Bogacki,
afb@paradise.net.nz

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC5hKI18X1Fk5VORARAie5AJ9ywbDMAhZvh6BfXsJYG1LebTbAzQCcD8kf
Uxw9ZGJ/QEkM+CMwCOMFSa8=
=eMdl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-firewall-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org