[CentOS] Firewall frustration
Christopher Chan
christopher at ias.com.hk
Fri Jan 4 23:54:03 UTC 2008
> Over at the IEEE 802, we are voting ballots on wording that can be
> interpreted on way with the Webster dictionary and another with the
> Oxford dictionary.
>
> So I am right about iptables controlling routing and you are right about
> iptables NOT controlling routing, only influencing it. What does
> 'control' mean in this context? IEEE is really big on state machines and
> truly covers the transfer of 'control' from one layer to another. Look
> at the MLME in 802.11. Look at the 802.1X machines. So since I have to
> live this control architecture and work in live debates about what layer
> is controling what, I have a particular language set.
>
Kernel routing code makes decision, iptables can influence that decision. :P
>
> BTW, should we table this debate? Webster says that means stopping,
> 'taking the subject off the table.' Oxford says that means to start,
> 'placing the subject on the table.' Boy did we have some moments back in
> the mid-90s with the ISO crowd descended on the IETF. Also can we reach
> a concensus here? Webster will accept a majority, Oxford wants complete
> agreement. (Or at least that is what these sources said back in the
> mid-90s when we lived Bernard Shaw's line of: 'Two nations separated by
> a common language')
>
^O^
>
> :)
>
> Now I have to hop over to the Asterisk list to figure why with one
> firewall the INVITE properly redirects the RTP to the RTP server, and
> the with the other firewall this is not in the INVITE so the RTP flow
> does not..... ARGH!!!!!
>
I hope you are not trying to get around a double nat situation. client
-> nat <-> nat <- asterisk.
I never managed to get things to work in that scenario. I have a vpn
setup to get things to work.
More information about the CentOS
mailing list