Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+Restore\s+ROUTE\s+MASQ\s+in\s+2\.4\s*$/: 24 ]

Total 24 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 19:26:06 +0000 (GMT)
I'm guilty, what to say more. I resurrected the route masq usage in 2.4: http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/~julian/#rtmasq By this way the route masq has more priority when the NAT connections are s
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00054.html (8,853 bytes)

2. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:16:59 +0300 (MSK)
Does resurrection make a sense?? What are reasons to do this? iptables seem to do everything. I made this trick in 2.2 because people (particuarly, me) wanted masquerading to work and ipchains did n
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00063.html (9,361 bytes)

3. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: xxxxx
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:08:28 +0000 (GMT)
where many local networks exist (without NAT-ing between them), there is NAT to other networks and where the result is a complex list of iptables/ipchains NAT rules (ACCEPT exceptions, SNAT...). We
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00064.html (11,262 bytes)

4. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:19:45 +0300 (MSK)
Well, this is right. I join their opinion too. :-) BTW this is puzzle for me: how do they block redirects? This was another big problem with masquerading in 2.2 and in fact another advantage of cont
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00070.html (9,182 bytes)

5. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: xxxxx
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:58:57 +0000 (GMT)
OK :) I still don't have their :) You mean the ICMP redirects? IIRC, they catch them in postrouting and drop them (icmp_reply_translation). The problem (even in 2.2) is for setup with multiple defau
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00071.html (11,402 bytes)

6. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:01:07 +0000 (GMT)
I forgot to mention another thing: users report that there are applications that change the tos in established state (openssh?). This change causes ip_route_input to select different path from the m
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00072.html (10,621 bytes)

7. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 23:17:58 +0300 (MSK)
Pheew... "multipath" route + when "masqueraded" + rules introducing dependency on tos. Do not make this and live in peace. :-) ip_route_input is called on a packet. It needs no more arguments. Short
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00090.html (9,335 bytes)

8. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 23:00:11 +0000 (GMT)
No, there are no rules depending on tos but ip_route_input selects different paths for masqueraded packets from same connection but with different tos. Yes, it is a complicated issue, simple setup:
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00093.html (10,604 bytes)

9. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 21:43:59 +0300 (MSK)
Hey, stop! tos has nothing to do with this. Your problem is much worse, the same thing will happen as soon as route disappears from cache. Masquerading to different sources depending on multipath se
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00099.html (9,075 bytes)

10. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: xxxxx
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 21:11:30 +0200 (EET)
In fact, the masquerade connections will have the right to call ip_route_input providing lsrc. This is the only valid way to support masquerade through different ISPs with multipath (the route has n
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00101.html (9,505 bytes)

11. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:26:11 +0300 (MSK)
What's about fwmark? Why it does not help? I understand this, of course. Alexey
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00102.html (8,516 bytes)

12. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: xxxxx
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 21:49:21 +0200 (EET)
fwmark can be used for many things. For example, exactly in such setups LVS can use it to mark the incoming traffic that should be part of a virtual service. Then we can't use it to remember the inc
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00103.html (8,799 bytes)

13. [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 19:26:06 +0000 (GMT)
Hello, I'm guilty, what to say more. I resurrected the route masq usage in 2.4: http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/~julian/#rtmasq By this way the route masq has more priority when the NAT connections
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00188.html (8,868 bytes)

14. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:16:59 +0300 (MSK)
Hello! Does resurrection make a sense?? What are reasons to do this? iptables seem to do everything. I made this trick in 2.2 because people (particuarly, me) wanted masquerading to work and ipchains
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00197.html (9,424 bytes)

15. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:08:28 +0000 (GMT)
Hello, where many local networks exist (without NAT-ing between them), there is NAT to other networks and where the result is a complex list of iptables/ipchains NAT rules (ACCEPT exceptions, SNAT...
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00198.html (11,306 bytes)

16. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:19:45 +0300 (MSK)
Hello! Well, this is right. I join their opinion too. :-) BTW this is puzzle for me: how do they block redirects? This was another big problem with masquerading in 2.2 and in fact another advantage o
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00204.html (9,229 bytes)

17. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:58:57 +0000 (GMT)
Hello, OK :) I still don't have their :) You mean the ICMP redirects? IIRC, they catch them in postrouting and drop them (icmp_reply_translation). The problem (even in 2.2) is for setup with multiple
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00205.html (11,446 bytes)

18. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:01:07 +0000 (GMT)
Hello, I forgot to mention another thing: users report that there are applications that change the tos in established state (openssh?). This change causes ip_route_input to select different path from
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00206.html (10,650 bytes)

19. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 23:17:58 +0300 (MSK)
Hello! Pheew... "multipath" route + when "masqueraded" + rules introducing dependency on tos. Do not make this and live in peace. :-) ip_route_input is called on a packet. It needs no more arguments.
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00224.html (9,381 bytes)

20. Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4 (score: 1)
Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 23:00:11 +0000 (GMT)
Hello, No, there are no rules depending on tos but ip_route_input selects different paths for masqueraded packets from same connection but with different tos. Yes, it is a complicated issue, simple s
/archives/netdev/2002-01/msg00227.html (10,633 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu