In article <[email protected]>, Reindl Harald <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 01.08.2014 um 17:16 schrieb Barry Margolin: > > In article <[email protected]>, > > Reindl Harald <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> the thread yesterday reminded me on my Fedora bugrpeort > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1073038#c3 > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1073038#c8 > >> > >> i don't buy "Note that destination IP address must be > >> known and set correctly in reply, otherwise clients > >> will be confused" because how does it survive NAT > > > > What's meant is that the source address of the reply must match the > > destination address of the request. This is the how TCP behaves > > automatically, since it involves connections, but all UDP packets are > > independent. When BIND sends a reply message, the stack doesn't know > > that it's related to a particular incoming message whose IPs should be > > flipped. > > > > It survives NAT because the router remembers how it translated the > > incoming packet. When it sees an outgoing packet with the translated IP > > and port, it undoes the translation > > yes and no > > iptables knows the concept of " -p udp -m conntrack --ctstate NEW" > so the stack somehow knows, not the same way as TCP but it knows > > other UDP services like OpenVPN, dhcpd, avahi or mediathomb just > listening on UDP 0.0.0.0:port and just working Works fine on single-homed hosts, can break on multi-homed hosts. Sam -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
