On 2011-11-29 13:23, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Tuesday 2011-11-29 10:19, Ulrich Weber wrote:
On 28.11.2011 23:03, Amos Jeffries wrote:
I'm going to dare to call FUD on those statements...
* Load Balancing - what is preventing your routing rules or packet
marking using the same criteria as the NAT changer? nothing. Load
balancing works perfectly fine without NAT.
Source address selection, having to occur on the source, would
require that the source has to know all the parameters that a {what
would have been your NAT GW} would need to know, which means you have
to (a) collect and/or (b) distribute this information. Given two
uplinks that only allow a certain source network address (different
for each uplink), combined with the desire to balance on utilization,
(a) a client is not in the position to easily obtain this data unless
it is the router for all participants itself, (b) the clients needs
to cooperate, and one cannot always trust client devices, or hope for
their technical cooperation (firewalled themselves off).
Yes, NAT is evil, but if you actually think about it, policies are
best applied where [the policy] originates from. After all, we also
don't do LSRR, instead, routers do the routing, because they just
know much better.
I fully agree. NAT can not replace your firewall rules.
However with NAT you could get some kind of anonymity.
Same network prefix, some cookies, or a login form. Blam, identified,
or at least (Almost-)Uniquely Identified Visitor tagging.
But without NAT you have pretty big chance to have the same IPv6
*suffix* everywhere, based on you MAC address. In your Home, your Work,
in a Cafe or in a hotel during your vacations in Portugal. So yes, NAT
is not a perfect solution but it really helps you privacy.
Best regards,
Krzysztof Olędzki
--
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
