[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BB43DE6.9060300@iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:32:06 +0300
From: Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] SPD basic actions per netdev
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 09:20:40AM +0300, Timo Teräs wrote:
>> But my statement still holds. If iif/oif is swapped, it's changing
>> current semantics and can end up breaking setups. Both are still
>> valid for 'in' and 'fwd' policies too, right? What if I'm using
>> 'in' policy to make sure that all stuff arriving via 'eth0' is
>> encrypted, but 'eth1' is trusted and does not need xfrm. This
>> would break.
>
> The thing is if you're currently specifying an ifindex in the
> selector for inbound/forward, it probably just won't work as
> it'll be matched against oif which is meaningless on inbound
> and forward.
On inbound it's always loopback interface. Does the same hold
true on forward? I was under the impression that it would
reflect the actual destination interface.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists