From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Daniel L. Miller" Subject: Re: Basic Routing Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:39:39 -0800 Message-ID: <490F537B.7070506@amfes.com> References: <490DD23F.7060406@amfes.com> <013f01c93d0c$f4a47410$dded5c30$@info> <490DF4CA.1010808@amfes.com> <490E12DF.6090602@riverviewtech.net> <490E597B.50400@amfes.com> <490E633D.20103@riverviewtech.net> <490F5103.8070409@amfes.com> Reply-To: dmiller@amfes.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <490F5103.8070409@amfes.com> Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Mail List - Netfilter Daniel L. Miller wrote: > Grant Taylor wrote: >> Is this close to what you are wanting to happen? (Let me know before >> I explain how to make this happen.) > Um...no. Too complicated. > Now that we're discussing that - let's change gears and talk about it differently. > A==>C<==>D<===B No Internet - but still private networks. So Router C has a route for the network 'A' 192.168.0.0/24 and route to reach router 'D'. Router 'D' knows about network 'B' 192.168.1.0 and router 'C'. D and C talk to each other, just because, on their own network of 172.16.0.0/16. Is any NAT required for this conversation? In particular - do Linux routers require SNAT lines for this? Or just routing tables? -- Daniel