George's later mail is quite correct.
10.0.0.0\24
should contain the ip 10.0.0.1, therefor hosts on the 10.0.0.x segement
expect to see it directly
10.23.4.209 will(should) have a route to the 10.0.0.x network, therefor
will eventually find 10.0.0.1 ...
Point to be made if the objects on 10.0.0.0\24 *know* about 192.168.x.x as
10.0.0.1 this tells me that there is likely nothing *using* 10.0.0.1
therefor, you can ADD the 10.0.0.1 address to the eth interface of the linux
iptables box, and simply add in the PREROUTING chain a rule to dnat
everything to its intended destination. Since the 10.0.0.1 address is NOT
used by the linux iptables firewall, it wont NEED to accept any of those
packets. -- it will be getting IT's packets on the 10.0.0.250 address ...
Its all as clear as mud .. but it will work.
On June 19, 2003 11:13 pm, Shawn wrote:
> > > iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -i eth0 -d 10.0.0.1 -J DNAT \
> > > --to 192.168.0.1
> >
> > Ummm .
> > Where is 10.0.0.1? (since the network is /24)
> > If eth0's ip is 10.0.0.250 why would any packets for 10.0.0.1 end up
> > there? Unless there is an *external* routing reference that puts
> > 10.0.0.1 through 10.0.0.250 this cannot work. If there is such a
> > routing, the rule should work.
>
> My scenario was bogus. Sorry! It's probably more accurate to say that
> some host "10.23.4.209" is going to try to reach 10.0.0.1, and
> 10.0.0.250 is the last hop on the way there, and should DNAT those
> packets to 192.168.0.1.
>
> The problem with my original scenario was that since the hosts needing
> to reach 10.0.0.1/24 (which is really 192.168.0.1) were on the
> 10.0.0.1/24 network themselves. Why would they need to look up a route
> for a host that's supposed to be on the same network as them?
>
> So, others were saying to assign 10.0.0.1 to linux-router/eth0:1 (I
> guess) so the host would actually get all the packets intended for
> 10.0.0.1. I guess it's surprising to me if this works, because at what
> point does linux-router decide if a packet if to be forwarded or
> accepted as it's own? If eth0 has 10.0.0.1, would DNATing the packet to
> 192.168.0.1 keep linux-router from owning the packet?
>
> Hmmm...
--
Alistair Tonner
nerdnet.ca
Senior Systems Analyst - RSS
Any sufficiently advanced technology will have the appearance of magic.
Lets get magical!
