Re: is this the zillionth mail asking for this detail?

[Edmundo Carmona <eantoranz@gmail.com>]

I know the routing decision has been made.... but I thought there
could be a second routing decision... just like OUTPUT (there will be
a second routing decision if some properties from the packet were
mangled... or natted).

On 8/10/05, /dev/rob0 <rob0@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> [ top-posting fixed ]
> On Wednesday 2005-August-10 10:37, Edmundo Carmona wrote:
> > On 7/21/05, Edmundo Carmona <eantoranz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > But for the record: for locally generated packets the routing
> > > > engine is called after OUTPUT only if source address, destination
> > > > address, nfmark field or tos of the skbuff changed. So it's not
> > > > called blindly for every packet.
> 
> > Sorry to reply on an old thread.. but I think it's a good point to
> > start my next questions. Does the same policy stand on FORWARD? There
> > will be another routing decision if source address, destination
> > address, nfmark field or tos of the skbuff changed???
> 
> Of which FORWARD are you asking, filter or mangle? In either case I
> think the routing decision has already been made. In neither case
> (TTBOMK; I don't know much about mangle) can you change source and
> destination IP addresses. Why would there be another routing decision?
> --
>     mail to this address is discarded unless "/dev/rob0"
>     or "not-spam" is in Subject: header
> 
>