Re: Duplicate IP scenario. Doable with iptables?

[Jason Opperisano <opie@817west.com>]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 12:44:07PM -0700, Kevin Hilscher wrote:
> I have a somewhat odd scenario that requires the same pools of 192.168
> IPs to be bound to eth1 and eth2 on the same machine.

odd?  no--it seems pretty much everyone has the same two problems these
days:

1) multiple, overlapping network address ranges
2) an inability to search through mailing list archives

> I need to NAT
> another pool of 10.x.x.x IPs bound to eth0 to these two pools of 192.168
> IPs. The setup is as follows:
>  
> eth0:10.115.0.1/16 -> eth1:192.168.0.1/24
> eth0:10.115.0.2/16 -> eth1:192.168.0.2/24
> eth0:10.115.0.3/16 -> eth1:192.168.0.3/24
> eth0:10.115.0.4/16 -> eth1:192.168.0.4/24
> eth0:10.115.0.5/16 -> eth1:192.168.0.5/24
> eth0:10.115.0.6/16 -> eth1:192.168.0.6/24
>    
> eth0:10.116.0.1/16 -> eth2:192.168.0.1/24
> eth0:10.116.0.2/16 -> eth2:192.168.0.2/24
> eth0:10.116.0.3/16 -> eth2:192.168.0.3/24
> eth0:10.116.0.4/16 -> eth2:192.168.0.4/24
> eth0:10.116.0.5/16 -> eth2:192.168.0.5/24
> eth0:10.116.0.6/16 -> eth2:192.168.0.6/24
>  
> Suse 8.1 has no problem letting me bind the same IPs to eth1 and eth2,
> since eth1 and eth2 are not on the same physical network. However, I am
> having problems writing my NAT rules for this scenario.
>  
> Is this scenario doable under iptables?

refer to:

  http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=netfilter&m=110027573811157&w=2

though Carry never reported back whether it worked or not--so YMMV, but
it sure saves some typing...  :-D

-j

--
"I hope I didn't brain my damage."
        --The Simpsons