Re: NAT and 2.2?

Re: NAT and 2.2?

[Michael Hasenstein]

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Greg Maxwell wrote:

> Can the new IP ROUTE stuff in 2.2 do ONE-ONE NAT insted of the standard

check http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/HyperNews/get/linux-ip-nat.html
long term solution will probably be 2.3, see ipchain homepage, new
netfilter code, I'm looking into contributing there right now, but since
you need something fast... the stuff on the page above is in production
use by some insane people; both 2.2 and 2.0 versions work (if you get the
right one, you should now how to patch a kernel and being able to read
the code certainly helps)
there's NAT code in the current 2.2 series, haven't tried that, don't know
if it works and how well it works
disadvantage of both: no protocol specific NAT available (i.e. ftp won't
work, if you only NAT src OR dest, one of PASV/reg. ftp will work, though,
but not if you NAT both
don't forget to read the 50 page document on that site ;-)


--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/
Private Pilot (ASEL) since 1998


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: NAT and 2.2?

[kuznet]

Hello!

> Can the new IP ROUTE stuff in 2.2 do ONE-ONE NAT insted of the standard
> good ole MASQ (MANY-ONE)? I got hit with having to set up a nat solution
> by Saturday AM, and it looks like Linux is the only thing that could hit
> that deadline within budget.

ONE-ONE is the only thing, which ROUTE_NAT is able. It is supposed to be
used for site renumbering and to facilitate policy routing, rather
then to compress ip address space or to split load.

The setup is very easy: micro-howto may be found
at http://www.compendium.com.ar/policy-routing.txt
It is very small, but contains basic hints.

Also: ftp://post.tepkom.ru/pub/vol2/Linux/docs/advanced-routing.txt

> I'll also need it to pass through port numbers unmolested. :( (stupid
> state security). 

I failed to parse it, but try to continue 8)

- it is stateless to be scalable. -> no dynamic nat, no load splitting.
- it does not touch packet payload to be fast and does not check
  it to be not ambigous. -> no active ftp in one direction and no passive
			    in backward.
- it is not intended to remap only range of ports, though
  it is possible with fwmark.

Alexey Kuznetsov

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: NAT and 2.2?

[lf]

Quoting kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru (kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru):

> Also: ftp://post.tepkom.ru/pub/vol2/Linux/docs/advanced-routing.txt

	A text version seems to be not available, but there's a TeX
	and Postscript version there:

	ftp://post.tepkom.ru/pub/vol2/Linux/docs/advanced-routing.ps
	ftp://post.tepkom.ru/pub/vol2/Linux/docs/advanced-routing.tex

Lars.
-- 
Lars Fenneberg,  lf@elemental.net (private), lf@cityline.net (work)
pgp 1024/1A3A7A4D  D1 28 F1 FF 3C 6B C0 27  CC 9C 6C 09 34 0A 55 18

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/