On 03/02/11 16:42, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On 03/02/11 15:23, Hans Schillstrom wrote: >> On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 14:51 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >>> On 03/02/11 14:34, Hans Schillstrom wrote: >>> this assumption is not valid in NAT handlings. >> >> That's true, because I want to avoid conntrack >> >>> If you want consistent hashing with NAT handlings you'll have to make >>> this stateful and use the conntrack source and reply directions of the >>> original tuples (thus making it stateful). That may be a problem because >>> some people may want to use this without enabling connection tracking. >> >> What about a compilation switch or a sysctl ? > > or better some option for iptables. Hm, this is actually not straight forward to implement, you'll have to use hook functions to avoid the module dependencies with conntrack and that's pretty annoying. I don't come up with a good solution for this. >>> Are you using this for (uplink) load balancing? >> >> Actually in both ways >> - in front of a bunch of ipvs to make some preliminary load-sharing between the load balancers? >> - and in the payloads for outgoing traffic. and then to select the uplink, right? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
