[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4

To: ja@xxxxxx (Julian Anastasov)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Restore ROUTE MASQ in 2.4
From: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:16:59 +0300 (MSK)
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0201201901320.11598-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxx> from "Julian Anastasov" at Jan 20, 2 07:26:06 pm
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

>       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.


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