I'm wondering about this too... I think that would be very nice to give the FWaaS, the ability to manage the NAT table of tenant router.
This way, there is no need for a "NAT Instance" with a second Floating IP attached to it plus creepy NAT rules there (far away from the tenant router). Also, the IPv4 tenant router already have "by nature", 1 Floating IP for it, so, because there is no way to configure the NAT rules of the qrouter, we need to give at least 2 public IPs (one for the router itself, another for the "NAT Instance") for each tenant, with in IPv4 world, is a waste. Please Stackers! FWaaS needs to be able to handle NAT rules (I think)... ;-) Cheers! Thiago On 19 December 2013 12:23, Abbass MAROUNI <[email protected]>wrote: > Hello, > > Why is it not possible to do port forwarding with neutron L3 ? > Any alternative to manually adding to iptables of each virtual router ? > > Best regards, > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack > >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
