Re: [PATCH] MASQUERADE handling of device events

[Herve Eychenne <rv@wallfire.org>]

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:24:34AM +0100, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Rusty Russell wrote:

> >Drawing a link between point-to-point and addresses being static is
> >wrong, IMHO.

> Agreed.

> This discussion is equally important on Ethernet with dynamic IP 
> assignment. Here the interface name is defenitely static.

> As already discussed very many times MASQUERADE is a best effort to handle 
> the common "dial up like" with dynamic Internet IP assignment scenarios in 
> an easy manner.  A multiple PPP situation is more of an exception than 
> rule to this, and in addition userspace has the option of using statically 
> reserved PPP devices for the connections in question to make the proposed 
> MASQUERADE fully predictable in such situations.

Being the guy who proposed the original change to Rusty during the
workshop 2003, I eventually step up to support this view. :-)
IMHO, the goal of the MASQUERADE target is trying to deal as
nicely as possible with the common cases.

I think it should be kept that way, no matter it may have some side effect
for uncommon or obscur setups, as long as the potential corner cases are
clearly documented.
The more complex scenarios should always be able to use something
else than MASQUERADE.

 Herve

-- 
 _
(°=  Hervé Eychenne
//)
v_/_ WallFire project:  http://www.wallfire.org/