From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Schaaf Subject: Re: nf_conntrack & NAT Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:41:49 +0100 Message-ID: <20051207094149.GA620@oknodo.bof.de> References: <200511231225.jANCPmYd015427@toshiba.co.jp> <20051123132044.GZ3249@eychenne.org> <20051123132419.GJ24091@fi.muni.cz> <20051206154320.GG4038@rama.exocore.com> <20051206173135.GQ5617@eychenne.org> <20051207070517.GA4361@rama.exocore.com> <20051207070039.GC474@oknodo.bof.de> <20051207130650.GA4151@rama.exocore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: To: Harald Welte , Patrick Schaaf , Herve Eychenne , Jan Kasprzak , netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, Yasuyuki KOZAKAI Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051207130650.GA4151@rama.exocore.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 Harald, [SNIP] > If we later need something different for IPv6, then let's do that at > this later point. Hey! That's absolutely fine with me. I don't care about v6 at all, at the moment, and in the next few years. But I couldn't let stand the opinion that stateless NAT would be sufficient for what is now done with REDIRECT and v4. BTW, my special application might well be the normal case for a lot of nifty "captive portal" setups, e.g. at WLAN hotspots. best regards Patrick