| To: | Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] MASQUERADE / policy routing ("Route send us somewhere else") |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:19:15 -0700 |
| Cc: | netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040831013841.GA5824@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20040830201957.GY5824@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040830140729.7309ecc0.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040831013841.GA5824@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 03:38:42 +0200 Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks for your quick reply, Dave. Was this one quicker? :) > > # It can screw up the things a lot. > > does not really give me an understanding of why and where it might screw > up. I really want to fully understand this issue before proposing any > change. > > > # In this context, if you want to be sure that packet will go out > > # expected interface you do plain lookup and drop packet if it gave > > # you some strange route. > > That is the presumption I am about to challenge. Is the 'original' > interface really the one we want in this case? Good question. What Alexey appears to be objecting to, exactly, is how Rusty added a specific output device specifier to the flow key for route lookup. I think the check can be removed. If someone screams, we'll revisit. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: RFC/PATCH capture qdisc requeue event in stats, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC] MASQUERADE / policy routing ("Route send us somewhere else"), Herbert Xu |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC] MASQUERADE / policy routing ("Route send us somewhere else"), Harald Welte |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC] MASQUERADE / policy routing ("Route send us somewhere else"), Herbert Xu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |