From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Grant Taylor <gtaylor@riverviewtech.net>
Subject: Re: Redirecting ports in a bridge
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:16:30 -0500
Message-ID: <480F6EEE.9010201@riverviewtech.net>
References: <48086990.5060000@juntadeandalucia.es> <alpine.LNX.1.10.0804181232400.26385@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr> <48087E17.8080902@juntadeandalucia.es> <alpine.LNX.1.10.0804181328560.26385@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr> <480888CE.3080400@juntadeandalucia.es> <alpine.LNX.1.10.0804231722570.13697@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.1.10.0804231722570.13697@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netfilter.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: Mail List - Netfilter <netfilter@vger.kernel.org>

On 04/23/08 10:24, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Often layer-2 transparency is not needed, but what do I know. If you 
> just log layer-3 (IP addrs) and up without caring about MAC 
> addresses, make a standard routing setup, i.e. 192.168.1.0/22 on 
> eth0, 192.168.2.0/22 on eth1, and enable forwarding; kinda like that. 
> And let hosts use 192.168.1.1/192.168.2.1 as a default gw (as they 
> already should do).

If it was not for the fact that the OP wanted layer 3 transparency, I 
would agree with you.  However the desire to insert this between a 
router and one or more systems with out changing the IP addressing 
necessitates the use of layer 2 technology, i.e. bridging.



Grant. . . .