| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] MASQUERADE / policy routing ("Route send us somewhere else") |
| From: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:33:22 +1000 |
| Cc: | laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040830192458.1476df60.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20040831013841.GA5824@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E1C1yGT-000859-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040830192458.1476df60.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i |
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 07:24:58PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:20:53 +1000 > Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > So it would be good to know why the oif key is a bad idea. > > I'm OK with removing the oif check, but I'm not OK with the > idea of specifying a specific output interface in the > route lookup flow key here. Can you please give a reason for that? -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC] MASQUERADE / policy routing ("Route send us somewhere else"), David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC] MASQUERADE / policy routing ("Route send us somewhere else"), Herbert Xu |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC] MASQUERADE / policy routing ("Route send us somewhere else"), David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC] MASQUERADE / policy routing ("Route send us somewhere else"), Henrik Nordstrom |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |