On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 12:24:01AM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote: > With IP bound to NIC, I can just SNAT all SYN packets to http/ftp ports > to originate from the desired IP, and get implicit routing via the right > NIC. With the default routing based on destination I go into the mangle > table and start MARKing packets, creating source routing tables and > rules, etc. All of which is very time consuming and gets amazinly ugly > when you add routing for multiple VPN connections, etc. Wait, I'm confused. There are systems out there that use the Iface column in the routing table as a selector to determine which route to use? I was always under the impression that the interface was an output of the routing table not an input. Also source routing doesn't require any firewall rules or marking of packets. > I'm clearly not alone, you rejected various patches for 2.4 aimed at > various parts of this or partial solutions, and only the ARP changes > seem to be present. People who need this capability don't care if it's > default, we just want it to be simpler to use than what's there. Hope > that's clearer. I think the current system is clear and simple. I'm not sure I understand how your suggestion would work. Where does the interface play a role in route selection? Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
