forked from DGNum/liminix
extneder: delete nftables kernel config
don't need nftables on a bridge. (do we? hope not)
This commit is contained in:
parent
4ea518e296
commit
0a820a702a
1 changed files with 0 additions and 35 deletions
|
@ -27,41 +27,6 @@ in rec {
|
|||
|
||||
hostname = "extneder";
|
||||
|
||||
kernel = {
|
||||
config = {
|
||||
|
||||
NETFILTER_XT_MATCH_CONNTRACK = "y";
|
||||
|
||||
IP6_NF_IPTABLES = "y"; # do we still need these
|
||||
IP_NF_IPTABLES = "y"; # if using nftables directly
|
||||
|
||||
# these are copied from rotuer and need review.
|
||||
# we're not running a firewall, so why do we need
|
||||
# nftables config?
|
||||
IP_NF_NAT = "y";
|
||||
IP_NF_TARGET_MASQUERADE = "y";
|
||||
NETFILTER = "y";
|
||||
NETFILTER_ADVANCED = "y";
|
||||
NETFILTER_XTABLES = "y";
|
||||
|
||||
NFT_COMPAT = "y";
|
||||
NFT_CT = "y";
|
||||
NFT_LOG = "y";
|
||||
NFT_MASQ = "y";
|
||||
NFT_NAT = "y";
|
||||
NFT_REJECT = "y";
|
||||
NFT_REJECT_INET = "y";
|
||||
|
||||
NF_CONNTRACK = "y";
|
||||
NF_NAT = "y";
|
||||
NF_NAT_MASQUERADE = "y";
|
||||
NF_TABLES = "y";
|
||||
NF_TABLES_INET = "y";
|
||||
NF_TABLES_IPV4 = "y";
|
||||
NF_TABLES_IPV6 = "y";
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
profile.wap = {
|
||||
interfaces = with config.hardware.networkInterfaces; [
|
||||
lan
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue