[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190709104206.gy6l52rx2dat3743@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 12:42:06 +0200
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: wenxu <wenxu@...oud.cn>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, pablo@...filter.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next 1/3] netfilter: nf_nat_proto: add
nf_nat_bridge_ops support
wenxu <wenxu@...oud.cn> wrote:
> > For NAT on bridge, it should be possible already to push such packets
> > up the stack by
> >
> > bridge input meta iif eth0 ip saddr 192.168.0.0/16 \
> > meta pkttype set unicast ether daddr set 00:11:22:33:44:55
>
> yes, packet can be push up to IP stack to handle the nat through bridge device.
>
> In my case dnat 2.2.1.7 to 10.0.0.7, It assume the mac address of the two address
> is the same known by outer.
I think that in general they will have different MAC addresses, so plain
replacement of ip addresses won't work.
> But in This case modify the packet dmac to bridge device, the packet push up through bridge device
> Then do nat and route send back to bridge device.
Are you saying that you can use the send-to-ip-layer approach?
We might need/want a more convenient way to do this.
There are two ways that I can see:
1. a redirect support for nftables bridge family.
The redirect expression would be same as "ether daddr set
<bridge_mac>", but there is no need to know the bridge mac address.
2. Support ebtables -t broute in nftables.
The route rework for ebtables has been completed already, so
this needs a new expression. Packet that is brouted behaves
as if the bridge port was not part of the bridge.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists