| To: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] MASQUERADE / policy routing ("Route send us somewhere else") |
| From: | Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:41:35 +0300 (EEST) |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20040831082339.GA949@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello,
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 05:00:43PM +1000, herbert wrote:
> >
> > Here's a better idea. Why don't we forget about the route lookup
> > and call inet_select_addr directly?
>
> Even better, why don't we use the skb->dst directly? It already
> contains the preferred source for the route that led us to the
> device.
>
> Here is an untested patch which does exactly that? Please do your
> best to break it :)
No need for tests :) rt_spec_dst is your preferred src
to the sender (your local internal IP) and rt_src is the internal
IP of the sender (what we snat).
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: Updated WE-18 (WPA) proposal, Luis R. Rodriguez |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Allow setting dev->weight using ip(8), Eric Lemoine |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC] MASQUERADE / policy routing ("Route send us somewhere else"), Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC] MASQUERADE / policy routing ("Route send us somewhere else"), Herbert Xu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |