[suse-sparc] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: [suse-sparc] Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Freeswan and SuSE Sparc Linux

From: Ed Coates (edcoates_at_nighthawk.dyndns.org)
Date: Fri Dec 20 2002 - 05:51:16 CET

  • Next message: Nick Thompson: "[suse-sparc] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: [suse-sparc] Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Freeswan and SuSE Sparc Linux" 
    Message-ID: <1040359876.3e02a1c492bf8@mail.shadowland.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 22:51:16 -0600
From: Ed Coates <edcoates@nighthawk.dyndns.org>
Subject: [suse-sparc] Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: [suse-sparc] Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Freeswan and SuSE Sparc Linux

    Quoting Nick Thompson <nthompso@cae.wisc.edu>:

    > Any particular reason why you need the 2.4 kernel for your firewall duties?
    > For "simple" firewall duties, the 2.2 kernels with IPCHAINS work very well.
    >
    > You only need iptables if you're doing complicated "stateful" firewalling.
    > Simple keeping intruders out and your inside connections getting internet
    > sharing doesn't require such complexity. I'd suggest rolling to 2.2 kernel,
    > getting it all to work (so you know your configuration is all good), then
    > try to "graduate" up to 2.4 kernel and new compile of Freeswan.
    >
    > Just a thought.

    You may possibly be right about not needing the capabilities of iptables, but
    what do I when I take your advice, and then encounter the same problems when
    I "graduate," to 2.4?

    Ed

    -------------------------------------------------
    This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 

    -- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-sparc-unsubscribe@suse.com
For additional commands, e-mail: suse-sparc-help@suse.com

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Dec 20 2002 - 05:51:22 CET