Description of problem: When you add an accounting rule to iptables using the address 64.42.222.96/26 it does not work, but seems to add another rule that is different. The rule I add is: iptables -A acct-in -d 64.42.222.96/26 -j RETURN The rule that shows in a list (using iptables -nL acct-in) is: Chain acct-in (1 references) target prot opt source destination RETURN all -- 0.0.0.0/0 64.42.222.64/26 This situation renders one unable to get correct stats for the subnet (64.42.222.96/26). BIG DEAL FOR ME, as I have to invoice based on usage. (bummer) If I add two or more rules (this is what I really want to do: iptables -A acct-in -d 64.42.222.32/28 -j RETURN iptables -A acct-in -d 64.42.222.64/26 -j RETURN iptables -A acct-in -d 64.42.222.96/26 -j RETURN I get this: RETURN all -- 0.0.0.0/0 64.42.222.32/28 RETURN all -- 0.0.0.0/0 64.42.222.64/26 RETURN all -- 0.0.0.0/0 64.42.222.64/26 The counters for a verbose listing show that stats are racking up for the first subnet 64/26 and nothing for the second (supposed to be 96/26). This probably means the problem is not just a bad listing, but that the rule is broken when it is put in (iptables -A command). Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): iptables-1.2.8-8.72.3 How reproducible: Every time. Steps to Reproduce: 1. iptables -N acct-in 2. iptables -F acct-in 3. iptables -A acct-in -d 64.42.222.96/26 -j RETURN 4. iptables -nL acct-in Actual results: iptables added a rule for the IP/mask 64.42.222.64/26 and not the intended 64.42.222.96/26 Expected results: iptables should have added a rule for the IP/mask 64.42.222.96/26 Additional info: I am running this on RedHat Linux 7.3 with kernel 2.4.20-20.7 My phone number is: (204) 480-3003 or 1(866)316-1333
Are you sure, you want to use 64.42.222.96/26? This is not possible. You can use 64.42.222.0/26, 64.42.222.64/26, 64.42.222.128/26, 64.42.222.192/26 or 64.42.222.0/27, 64.42.222.32/27, 64.42.222.64/27, 64.42.222.96/27, 64.42.222.128/27, ..
Reply to Thomas Woerner: You are correct, I don't want to do this. I did mean /27 but was using /26 in error. When I use /27 it works as I expect it to. Sorry for the false alarm. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Regards, Steve