From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] netfilter: nf_nat: support user-specified SNAT rules in LOCAL_IN
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:07:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C2DF294.5010206@trash.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.01.1007021452430.11763@obet.zrqbmnf.qr>
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Friday 2010-07-02 14:35, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>>> Sure they do, if they are destined for the host itself. I'm not sure
>>>> what's so hard to understand about this patch, you have f.i. multiple
>>>> tunnels using the same remote network, on INPUT and POSTROUTING you SNAT
>>>> them to seperate networks based on criteria like the network device or
>>>> the IPsec tunnel to be able to distinguish them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But they are already distinguishable by the ctmark that is applied
>>> to these connections to do routing of the reply, are they not?
>>>
>>>
>> Its not (only) about routing, you simply can't have two connections using
>> the same identity.
>>
>
> Which is why the zone thing is added.
>
I'm not talking about conntrack at all. A connection needs
a unique identity. Just look at the socket lookup code.
> Ah, but I now see that you need to select a zone for it first.. touché.
>
> Still this SNAT-on-INPUT leaves a second taste. Adding another address
> to the tunnel master and using DNAT-on-PREROUTING for local deliveries
> would have also made the connections unambiguous
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-02 14:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-02 9:52 [PATCH 0/9] netfilter: netfilter update kaber
2010-07-02 9:52 ` [PATCH 1/9] netfilter: nf_nat: support user-specified SNAT rules in LOCAL_IN kaber
2010-07-02 10:14 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-07-02 10:17 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-07-02 12:17 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-07-02 12:35 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-07-02 12:58 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-07-02 14:07 ` Patrick McHardy [this message]
2010-07-02 9:52 ` [PATCH 2/9] IPVS: one-packet scheduling kaber
2010-07-02 9:52 ` [PATCH 3/9] netfilter: xt_IDLETIMER needs kdev_t.h kaber
2010-07-02 9:52 ` [PATCH 4/9] netfilter: fix simple typo in KConfig for netfiltert xt_TEE kaber
2010-07-02 9:52 ` [PATCH 5/9] netfilter: xt_connbytes: Force CT accounting to be enabled kaber
2010-07-02 9:52 ` [PATCH 6/9] netfilter: complete the deprecation of CONFIG_NF_CT_ACCT kaber
2010-07-02 9:52 ` [PATCH 7/9] netfilter: ipt_LOG/ip6t_LOG: remove comparison within loop kaber
2010-07-02 9:52 ` [PATCH 8/9] netfilter: ipt_LOG/ip6t_LOG: add option to print decoded MAC header kaber
2010-07-02 9:52 ` [PATCH 9/9] bridge: add per bridge device controls for invoking iptables kaber
2010-07-03 5:04 ` [PATCH 0/9] netfilter: netfilter update David Miller
2010-07-03 5:44 ` David Miller
2010-07-03 9:06 ` Patrick McHardy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4C2DF294.5010206@trash.net \
--to=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jengelh@medozas.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).