From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix MASQUERADE Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 14:32:07 -0700 Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <20040907143207.03d51561.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1094566809.25641.9.camel@bach> <20040907080944.3f80976c.davem@davemloft.net> <20040907213036.GA1587@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rusty@rustcorp.com.au, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, kaber@trash.net Return-path: To: Herbert Xu In-Reply-To: <20040907213036.GA1587@gondor.apana.org.au> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 07:30:36 +1000 Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 08:09:44AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > > > Didn't Herbert Xu et al. come to the conclusion that this isn't > > the way to fix this and that using inet_select_addr() had > > some problems especially in policy routing situations? > > No that was Julian Anastasov IIRC. > > I agree with Rusty and Harald that MASQUERADE should be as simple as > possible. So if you need complex routing to determine the correct > source address, then you should use SNAT. > > Now I haven't actually seen Rusty's patch but if it just uses > inet_select_addr then it's definitely the way to go. Hmmm, ok. Rusty, please resend to me under private cover.