netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] MASQUERADE / policy routing ("Route send us somewhere else")

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC] MASQUERADE / policy routing ("Route send us somewhere else")
From: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 08:04:29 +0300 (EEST)
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040831213318.GA7262@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20040831111508.GA2327@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408311446240.4022-100000@l> <20040831212802.GB7058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040831213318.GA7262@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
        Hello,

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Herbert Xu wrote:

> > I was mistaken.  In the mpath case there is no source address per
> > nexthop.
>
> Actually, that should still work.
>
> For example, if you're like me and the nexthops all go to different
> devices then it's obviously OK as inet_select_addr will pick the
> right one for the device.  If they're going through the same device
> but to different gateways then it'll still pick the right one for
> the given gateway.

        Yes, if the targets are from some of the GW's subnets. It
is a masquerade drawback not to match by GW because the routing
does not support it but the world is not perfect.

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>