From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lennert Buytenhek Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 00/10] Transparent proxying patches version 4 Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 17:11:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20070107161106.GA13717@xi.wantstofly.org> References: <20070103163357.14635.37754.stgit@nienna.balabit> <20070107141134.GA13543@prithivi.gnumonks.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from alephnull.demon.nl ([83.160.184.112]:59610 "EHLO xi.wantstofly.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932597AbXAGQLJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Jan 2007 11:11:09 -0500 To: Harald Welte , KOVACS Krisztian , netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070107141134.GA13543@prithivi.gnumonks.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 03:11:34PM +0100, Harald Welte wrote: > > So instead of using NAT to dynamically redirect traffic to local > > addresses, we now rely on "native" non-locally-bound sockets and do > > early socket lookups for inbound IPv4 packets. > > It's good to see a solid implementation of this 'old idea'. > > Just as a quick historical note to netdev: This is the way how the > netfilter project advised the balabit guys to implement fully > transparent proxy support, after having seen the complexity of the old > nat-based TPROXY patches. Didn't rusty tell the balabit guys to use the NAT approach?