On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Pavel Simerda <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm considering adding a new method for ip settings and I'd like some >> input before I go write the whole thing. Primarily, I'm wondering if >> this feature would have any chance of being merged since it will have >> very few users. My method accomplishes a similar thing to the >> "shared" > > I'm afraid you would have better chance with options tweaking the 'shared' > method if you need some tweaking at all. Misusing the 'method' for corner > cases has little chance to be accepted. >
I disagree that this would be a misuse; care to elaborate? I do agree that it is a corner case, which is why I'm asking now. The reason I'm considering NetworkManager is because I was about to implement my own manager, but it replicated much of NM's functionality. Hopefully once people get a clear picture of what I'm trying to do and why I'm doing it, we can settle on an answer of whether this would be welcome or not. >> connection method, but it's a little different. It will be called >> "forwarded" or "proxied". It is used for connecting to a network on >> behalf of another host. > > The 'shared' method is about providing network connectivity. I don't > understand > whether you are going to provide network connectivity or connect to a network. It's both. I am connecting to a cellular wireless network and providing that connectivty to another network (which is almost always a single device). > >> It's how I make my cellular wireless router >> work in situations where I need to offer the wireless connection as >> if >> it was just a normal Ethernet connection. > > There is not such a big difference between wireless and ethernet > connections. Their IP configuration is managed the same way. > It's a big difference when the wireless connection is PPP, which is very common. >> The setup involves connecting to a network normally, but not adding >> the acquired (via PPP, DHCP, etc) address to the interface > > So you recieve a DHCP address and you won't use it as the interface > address? Why? > A large number of my clients use custom APNs to get specific addresses to specific endpoints. They use my device because their equipment doesn't know how to use cellular cards; my device does the actual connection, then gives that address to the client. I cannot route packets to a host that has my IP address unless I use rediculous netfilter rules to trick the routing process. >> a different address is added the to interface instead > > How is it determined? > There is a default RFC 1918 address, but its configurable. >> and the original >> address from the network is saved; dhcpd is configured to offer that >> single address on the other interfaces. > > Wouldn't bridging serve this purpose better? PPP conections cannot be bridged with Ethernet. > >> Additionally, an SNAT target >> is added to the nat table's POSTROUTING chain so that this middle >> device can also use the connection. > > To me this looks much more complicated than it should be. What do you > gain using this method instead of network sharing? (And also instead > of bridging that is planned for NetworkManager?) Network sharing does not give the downstream device the address that was intended for it. _______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
