[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: moderately intelligent question
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: moderately intelligent question
- From: Casey Boone <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 12:25:57 -0500
- DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=gmAo5sueghamICGOGHtXOi8eZ0YIEC9Bkf9v/RXbo6uPJl3vhOjIDtPnIdjqtzqffZapXKQQQWuCKH9V8Kf79JyEdsv5akTudYQtKORp6Jllmrz/eeJInOXYYNIcV3jXney3icHxIx3JuGOGiC2C5ogS0PtKrDnnx9FOk0u7fqQ=
- In-Reply-To: <44AA5B79.email@example.com>
- Organization: Southern Illinois Linux Users Group
- References: <44AA5B79.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-To: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- User-Agent: Thunderbird 18.104.22.168 (Windows/20060516)
is this machine directly connected to the internet or is it behind a
dsl/cable router of some form? if you are you will need to set up a dmz
or port forwards through towards that computer.
for a test you can always close the bt client you are using, run
service iptables stop as root, then open the bt client again and see if
it still says you are firewalled or behind nat. if it says all is well
then you know the problem is in your local firewall rules, but if it
still says the same thing then the problem is elsewhere.
incidently there is no need to make a new chain, just iptables -I INPUT
1 --protocol tcp --dport 6881:6899 -i eth0 -j ACCEPT (and another for
udp) should bypass any redhat specific rules. also i dont believe that
the default rh rules block any outgoing traffic, only inbound.
> i was working on my downloads with bittorrent-gui when i realized the
> program told me i had a firewall in place (or nat'd). so i started
> trying to figure out how to fix it since i was positive i told the
> iptables program what to do about that. i never saved it ... wasn't
> thinking i had too (automatic save?).
> so i sat down and started figuring out how to set up my own iptables
> chain and this is where i got. i'm stuck because the commaand prompt
> keeps telling me that i have no chain by the name of the chain that
> exists. frustrating. so i'm telling it to make a new chain [iptables
> --new BitTorrent] and then i tell it to put a new rule in the chain (i
> think) as follows below. Then the computer promptly tells me that
> there is no rule/chain/target by that name.
> #original line follows.
> #iptables -I RH-Firewall-1-INPUT --protocol tcp --dport 6881:6899 -i
> eth0 -j ACCEPT
> #iptables -I BitTorrent-2-OUPUT --protocol udp --dport 6881 -i eth0 -j
> service iptables --stop
> iptables --new BitTorrent
> iptables -I BitTorrent-1-INPUT --protocol tcp --dport 6881:6899 -i
> eth0 -j ACCEPT
> iptables -I BitTorrent-2-OUPUT --protocol udp --dport 6881 -i eth0 -j
> #udp is OUTPUT right? i remember azureus griping about outbound
> traffic and the udp ...
> service iptables --save
> service iptables --startservice iptables --start
To unsubscribe, send email to email@example.com with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.