Re: Hairpin NAT - possible without packet marking?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 22:53:11 +0200
Pascal Hambourg <pascal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Le 04/07/2017 à 03:14, Robert White a écrit :
> >
> > I've honestly go no clue why you cant use --in-interface in a
> > POSTROUTING chain.  
> 
> Because the POSTROUTING chains also see packets that are generated 
> locally and have no input interface.

Logically, (for example) locally generated packets (that have no input interface) and packets from eth1 should equally fail to match "--in-interface eth2". In other words, a packet that has no source interface should never match any '--in-interface X' option because it clearly did not, and could not have, come in from interface X.

Of course, the implementation may present different conditions and limitations.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Netfilter Development]     [Linux Kernel Networking Development]     [Netem]     [Berkeley Packet Filter]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Advanced Routing & Traffice Control]     [Bugtraq]

  Powered by Linux