| 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@gondor.apana.org.au> |
| References: | <20040831111508.GA2327@gondor.apana.org.au> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408311446240.4022-100000@l> <20040831212802.GB7058@gondor.apana.org.au> <20040831213318.GA7262@gondor.apana.org.au> |
| 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>
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC] acx100 inclusion in mainline; generic 802.11 stack, Jouni Malinen |
|---|---|
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC] MASQUERADE / policy routing ("Route send us somewhere else"), Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC] MASQUERADE / policy routing ("Route send us somewhere else"), Herbert Xu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |