From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Taylor Subject: Re: NAT rule Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:49:55 -0500 Message-ID: <487E42D3.4080904@riverviewtech.net> References: <487E1DF3.1090203@hoecoop.org> <487E2DAD.9040806@riverviewtech.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Mail List - Netfilter On 07/16/08 12:25, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > Packets already destined for the tunnel (see first rule) are not > rerouted, because, well, it's POSTrouting. By the time packets would make it to your rule, yes. My concern is that the router / VPN setup will see one subnet on one ethernet interface and the same subnet on the other end of the tunnel. At least that is the understanding that I got from the OP. So my concern is not so much confusion on IPTables part so much as it is a simple routing (which interface gets used) seeing the same subnet in two different locations. I guess I should ask, how well will the router handle having the same subnet addresses in two different (non connected) locations, one being the ethernet interface and the other being through the tunnel? Grant. . . .