From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: Scaling Max IP address limitation Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:36:04 +0200 Message-ID: <467F8C84.9020404@trash.net> References: <467EA7C1.4080006@rossove.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Kyle Moffett , djones@rossove.com, LKML Kernel , Andrew Morton , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:63421 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751586AbXFYJgG (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:36:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Jun 24 2007 15:08, Kyle Moffett wrote: > >>Do you really need that many IP addresses? When somebody finally gets >>around to implementing REDIRECT support for ip6tables then you could >>just redirect them all to the same port on the local system. > > > The way I see it, it's: "if someone gets around to implement *IPv6 NAT*" > (which, if its designers were asked, is contrary to the idea of ipv6). You don't necessarily need NAT for REDIRECT, so we might actually have an ip6tables REDIRECT some day. Check out the current TPROXY patches for an example how to do it without NAT in case you're interested.