[Top] [All Lists]

Re: netfilter NAT vs. pump

To: mcr@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Richardson)
Subject: Re: netfilter NAT vs. pump
From: Werner Almesberger <almesber@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:58:00 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200006140329.XAA26598@xxxxxxxxxxx> from "Michael Richardson" at Jun 13, 2000 11:29:37 PM
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Michael Richardson wrote:
>   Yes, it does. When doing a request, you must use address according
> to the spec.

Okay, then it's probably impossible to get correct behaviour with the
current design of pump if there's already another configured interface.

>   So, we found the culprit. Why not use ISC dhclient? Frankly, I can't
> see any reason why anyone would want anything else...

I've just tested the Hariguchi/Viznyuk dhcpcd a bit more systematically,
and contrary to what I thought first, it's working correctly (it uses
PF_PACKET sockets). Apologies to the authors. However, there's still
some problem if I try to use the -s option.

BTW, my patch also has the problem that it makes pump fail with kernels
that don't have support for SO_BINDTODEVICE enabled. While one could
just ignore the return code, this is ugly. Also, it may be possible to
have a kernel with the NAT problem but no SO_BINDTODEVICE, so there's
again no way to get it to work.

So I guess I agree - time to dump pump.

- Werner

 / Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH       werner.almesberger@xxxxxxxxxxx /

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