netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 0/4] Support UID range routing.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5360ABD3.2020506@davidnewall.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:22:51 +0930
From:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
To:	Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, JP Abgrall <jpa@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/4] Support UID range routing.

On 30/04/14 14:06, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> The use of NAT [...] makes it impossible for the app to know its
> real IP address and port

The original address *is* the real address.  NAT breaks IP's design and 
is a very mixed blessing.  NAT isn't needed nor used with IPv6, and 
being in IPv4's twilight years, an argument predicated on NAT is not 
very convincing.

I feel that describing the patch as routing is misleading, as it 
performs only outbound link selection.  It fosters an expectation of 
bi-directionality, and that is not the case.  It will often result in 
asymmetric routes.

Is it possible you are trying to solve a problem which has already been 
solved, for example by IGP?
--
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