On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 16:23, Kenneth Porter wrote: > > IP numbers belong to the IP stack and have nothing to do with > > interfaces. This idea is completely useless, forget it, this will make > > things (eg. routing) a lot more understandable. From this point of > > view, Jasons posting is IMHO very clear. > > I only point it out because not everyone knows that there's a difference, > and may think that the non-NIC interfaces are immune. I remember setting up > my first ipchains firewall and thinking it odd that I needed explicit rules > for the loopback interface, but it makes perfect sense in hindsight. The part that I think is weird is that NAT may be tied to an interface when first applied, but even if routes are changed so that packets to a particular address no longer go through that interface, any that have an entry in the ip_conntrack table continue to have the NAT applied. Is this intentional? --- Les Mikesell les@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
