Re: Hairpin NAT - possible without packet marking?

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

 



On 07/04/2017 08:53 PM, Pascal Hambourg 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.

Wouldn't that just be a mismatch then? Equivalent to a NULL (in the
database usage of the term) where all tests against a missing interface
simply fail.

In the alternate, locally generated packets would seem to come from the
loop/local interface.

I suppose the mismatch logic could be expensive though, I don't know
where this code base's relative efficiencies lie.

Of course this idea may be well-travelled and settled ground.
--
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