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

> 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?
>

Stay with 2.2.  I have.  No problems to date. Half of my office Sparcs still
run 2.2 kernel. And my home firewall is still running 2.2 kernel, including
wireless lan support.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Coates" <[email protected]>
To: "Nick Thompson" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: Possible SPAM (accuracy low): Re: [suse-sparc] Possible SPAM
(accuracy low): Freeswan and SuSE Sparc Linux


> Quoting Nick Thompson <[email protected]>:
>
> > 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/
>
>