From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pascal Hambourg Subject: Re: iptables NAT routing issues Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:31:10 +0200 Message-ID: <464372FE.1070802@plouf.fr.eu.org> References: <4640E893.1010206@bserved.nl> <4640FAD0.9050301@plouf.fr.eu.org> <4640FDA9.5000706@bserved.nl> <464101DA.4070102@plouf.fr.eu.org> <46432A84.2010409@bserved.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <46432A84.2010409@bserved.nl> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed" To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org Bas Verhoeven a =E9crit : >=20 >> Use the outer box as a gateway, if it is in the same network. You do=20 >> not have to use it as the default gateway for all traffic but at least= =20 >> for the HTTP return traffic. This could be done with iptables and=20 >> advanced routing on the web server, for instance using the source port= =20 >> 80 to MARK packets or using CONNMARK/connmark. >=20 > I wasn't aware of that option, it seems to work fine ;-) Which option did you choose ? > Thanks. You're welcome.