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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists