From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Unknown Subject: RE: auto ip configuration Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:02:36 +0200 Message-ID: <1119474156.7825.29.camel@notbock> References: <57F9959B46E0FA4D8BA88AEDFBE582909EB2@pxtbenexd01.pxt.primeexalia.com> Reply-To: netfilter-devel@demultiplexer.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: nf-devel Return-path: To: "Gary W. Smith" In-Reply-To: <57F9959B46E0FA4D8BA88AEDFBE582909EB2@pxtbenexd01.pxt.primeexalia.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org hi Gary, i heard about DHCP, but a lot of people out there does not. they haven't any idea of ip. They admins configured they computers not to use dhcp but STATIC ip configuration. In such a case it would be nice to have a feature like described below. regards jaroslaw Am Mittwoch, den 22.06.2005, 13:55 -0700 schrieb Gary W. Smith: > Longshot but I think that it's called DHCP. Otherwise you would have to change something somewhere each time you plug up your laptop. > > Gary > > ________________________________ > > From: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org on behalf of Unknown > Sent: Wed 6/22/2005 1:53 PM > To: nf-devel > Subject: auto ip configuration > > > > dear list, > > you know about people, which have some static ip configuration on their > notebooks. they would like to connect to a smart gateway > without the need to change anything. > > I would ask you whether this is possible to implement such a gateway > using netfilter. > > I alredy build a working example with some tools and scripting > but it isn't really performant and it have a lot of "design errors". > Simple speaking it is a farpd running box, where all incoming requests > are logged through the bridging code. The Syslog output is piped > into a script and the requested ip is assigned to the lan interface. > Evil thing ;-) > > I would preffer something like inverse SNAT/MASQUERADE. > The difference would be, that: > it applys to PREROUTING > it does mapping from a big subnet (maybe 0/0) to a singe address or a > range of addresses. > > The farpd would point all clients to the gateway. > Having rp_filter disabled all misconfigured packets incoming on a lan > interface would be translated into a valid ip address. > Then the usual routing would take place. > The response packets would be back-natted into the clients idea of the > gateway address. > > Would please someone give me a pointer. > Am I completly wrong with this? > > regards > jaroslaw > > > >