Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 09:00:13PM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
On Saturday 02 December 2006 19:00, James Halstead wrote:
Ok, the "obvious" part that I think I was missing while it was late,
was that these must be keep-alive packets generated by the firewall as
the dynamic rules a
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 09:00:13PM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> On Saturday 02 December 2006 19:00, James Halstead wrote:
> > Ok, the "obvious" part that I think I was missing while it was late,
> > was that these must be keep-alive packets generated by the firewall as
> > the dynamic rules are about
On Saturday 02 December 2006 19:00, James Halstead wrote:
> Ok, the "obvious" part that I think I was missing while it was late,
> was that these must be keep-alive packets generated by the firewall as
> the dynamic rules are about to expire. That being the case however,
> shouldn't these keep-aliv
Ok, the "obvious" part that I think I was missing while it was late, was
that these must be keep-alive packets generated by the firewall as the
dynamic rules are about to expire. That being the case however,
shouldn't these keep-alive packets take the same action as the original
rule (skipto 10
