netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Problems with NAT/Masq and ipip on 2.4.[34]

To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Problems with NAT/Masq and ipip on 2.4.[34]
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 16:29:27 +0200
Cc: Phil Karn <karn@xxxxxxxx>, netfilter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20010428155739.A4593@fred.local>; from ak@muc.de on Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 03:57:39PM +0200
References: <200104280614.f3S6EIU01049@homer.ka9q.net> <20010428155739.A4593@fred.local>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 08:14:18AM +0200, Phil Karn wrote:
> If I configure policy routing on and netfilter off, I can establish my
> existing policy tables that deal with my rather complex ipip tunnel &
> NAT configuration. Everything works as it did under 2.2.19 *except*
> that policy entries calling for masquerading no longer work.

Such a policy rule is not really masquerading, just a very simple 
stateless NAT. It'll probably not do what you want because it has no
protocol translation support for ftp etc.

Masquerading has always been a different subsystem, controlled by the
firewall. In 2.4 masquerading still exists as a compatibility module, but
requires netfilter connection tracking.

In 2.4 there also is a more generic new NAT subsystem that among other
things supports old masquerading.

> I tried a kernel with netfilter turned on, but I was then no longer
> able to load the ipip.o module that I use for tunneling. I get two
> unresolved symbols from insmod: nf_hooks and nf_hooks_slow. Yet both
> symbols *are* mentioned in /System.map. Weird. This persisted even
> after a 'make clean' and remake.

Looks like you didn't turn on CONFIG_NETFILTER in the main kernel.
Without it masquerading will not work though.

-Andi


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