On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:49:08AM -0500, Brian Capouch wrote: > I have had to temporarily use a table-based route for one of my networks > for administrative reasons, e.g. this should work just fine. > I suspect though, that this mode of routing (as opposed to using the > "regular" table via "route add default") is somehow hosing my iptables NAT? > > At least sniffing the egress interface now shows the traffic heading out > with its NATted address of 192.168.1.10. did you try that with a connection that was established before you inserted the new NAT rule (also, if you test with a ping, you need to stop it to be recognized as new connection). LARTC mailinglist might give you some better feedback. > Thx. > B. -- - Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> http://www.netfilter.org/ ============================================================================ "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
