I've forwarded this to the list for Steve since someone
might have some thoughts on this.
--David
From: "Steve Hansel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I've done some experiments with this masquerading on a aliased port.
I turned on the flag DEBUG_IP_MASQUERADE_VERBOSE in the kernel.
I also used the -o flag on the ipfwadm command that tells the system to
masquerade.
When I use -W eth1 I get all kinds of log entries and kernel prints as you
would expect when masquerading is working.
When I use -W eth1:1 or the IP address for that interface, I get absolutely
nothing. This seems to indicate to me that it's not even trying.
I'm still stuck on my question: Are you absolutely sure that the -W and -V
options tell masquerading which port to send out, and don't act as a filter.
i.e. if the packet isn't going out this port, the masquerading rule doesn't
apply.
My experiments seems to show that it's the latter.
-W amd -V act as filters in all the other options. (Input rules and Output
rules).
Steve
----------
> From: David A. Ranch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Steve Hansel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Question
> Date: Saturday, March 06, 1999 3:58 PM
>
>
> >It was my impression that -W and -V were used for filtering (just like
> >-S and -D), and not to tell the kernel which interface to use. i.e. in
your
> >top 3 lines would only be applied if the packet came in on eth0:0.
>
> No, the -W and -V commands specifies what is the OUTGOING interface.
>
> --David
>
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| David A. Ranch - Linux/Networking/PC hardware [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
!---- ----!
`----- For more detailed info, see http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~dranch -----'
_______________________________________________
Masq maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://tiffany.indyramp.com/mailman/listinfo/masq
Admin requests can be handled by web (above) or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
