From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Newall Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/4] Support UID range routing. Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:22:51 +0930 Message-ID: <5360ABD3.2020506@davidnewall.com> References: <1398487705-13430-1-git-send-email-lorenzo@google.com> <535BB149.3090901@davidnewall.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Hannes Frederic Sowa , David Miller , JP Abgrall To: Lorenzo Colitti Return-path: Received: from hawking.rebel.net.au ([203.20.69.83]:60167 "EHLO hawking.rebel.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752071AbaD3Hw6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 03:52:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 30/04/14 14:06, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > The use of NAT [...] makes it impossible for the app to know its > real IP address and port The original address *is* the real address. NAT breaks IP's design and is a very mixed blessing. NAT isn't needed nor used with IPv6, and being in IPv4's twilight years, an argument predicated on NAT is not very convincing. I feel that describing the patch as routing is misleading, as it performs only outbound link selection. It fosters an expectation of bi-directionality, and that is not the case. It will often result in asymmetric routes. Is it possible you are trying to solve a problem which has already been solved, for example by IGP?