"icmp-port-unreachable"

[daniele giacomini]

Thank you all for your answers.
I just add this to explain better what I meant. If there is nothing to
add, I don't expect other replys.

On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Chris Allan wrote:
[...]
>> # iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -s 127.0.0.1 -d 127.0.0.1 -dport 80 -j REJECT
>> 
>> # iptables -L INPUT
>> 
>> Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT)
>> target     prot opt source               destination         
>> REJECT     tcp  --  localhost            localhost          tcp dpt:www reject-with icmp-port-unreachable 
>> 
>> Is it correct "icmp-port-unreachable"?
>
>Yes, this is correct, here you're specifying the response to a TCP
>packet. In this case you're sending, in response, an
>ICMP-port-unreachable packet.

Of course; I meant that I thought more logic something like:

REJECT     tcp  --  localhost            localhost          tcp dpt:www reject-with icmp type port-unreachable

so, with -n, I could have also:

REJECT     tcp  --  127.0.0.1            127.0.0.1          tcp dpt:80 reject-with icmp type 3/3

I mean that icmp-port-unreachable seems the name of something, and
instead it is the description of what happens.


Saluti/Regards/Grüße, 
daniele giacomini - Treviso, Italy