[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.01.1007021452430.11763@obet.zrqbmnf.qr>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 14:58:38 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
cc: davem@...emloft.net, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] netfilter: nf_nat: support user-specified SNAT rules
in LOCAL_IN
On Friday 2010-07-02 14:35, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>> Sure they do, if they are destined for the host itself. I'm not sure
>>> what's so hard to understand about this patch, you have f.i. multiple
>>> tunnels using the same remote network, on INPUT and POSTROUTING you SNAT
>>> them to seperate networks based on criteria like the network device or
>>> the IPsec tunnel to be able to distinguish them.
>>>
>>
>> But they are already distinguishable by the ctmark that is applied
>> to these connections to do routing of the reply, are they not?
>>
>
> Its not (only) about routing, you simply can't have two connections using
> the same identity.
Which is why the zone thing is added.
Ah, but I now see that you need to select a zone for it first.. touché.
Still this SNAT-on-INPUT leaves a second taste. Adding another address
to the tunnel master and using DNAT-on-PREROUTING for local deliveries
would have also made the connections unambiguous.
--
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