> I'm guilty, what to say more. I resurrected the route
> masq usage in 2.4:
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 not provide this facility
masquearading to a random address.
I am afraid it is not resurrection, but rather waking up a zombie.
It is intersting in any case. I even did not know that this is possible. :-)
> May be one bug: inet_rtm_delrule does not match the
> srcmap (RTA_GATEWAY) and by this way a wrong rule is deleted
> when they differ only by srcmap. Is it fixable?
No, I think. Actually, I planned to kill the match against everything
but priority. But the more I delayed this change, the more
it was cathastrophic. Well, look into ip-cref, it directly warns
about this change in future and prescribes to give an explicit priority.
But I will concentrate all the will and will do it in 2.5.