On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 12:50:27PM +0300, Peter Volkov Alexandrovich wrote: > On Monday 22 November 2004 11:59, you wrote: > > What virtual interfaces? > > Yes. I think it's a bit excessive to use ip utitlity to add additional address > to interface and then to use iptables to make DNAT and SNAT to map LAN's ip > address on external internet's ip address. You've lost me. What does SNAT/DNAT have to do with virtual addresses? The whole point of NAT is to reuse existing addresses. Can you give an example. > It's much more naturally to use two commands with ip utility and route nat. > Just one direction DNAT (ip route add nat ...) and another direction SNAT (ip > rule add nat ...). Very simple. > > Furthermore. I even knew nothing about speed improvements of route nat. But it > exist. So. I think route nat was the very appreciable feature of linux. Now > it's dead. I've know about NAT in the routing table, but I've never seen it at work... -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a > tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone > else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
Attachment:
pgp1hOFAqt2HE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
