Forgot to copy the list on the last reply, but also realized something and
asking for one change below.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>
> On 3 November 2016 at 20:42, Mickey Spiegel wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Guru
On 3 November 2016 at 20:42, Mickey Spiegel wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> > 2. If a stateful action such as DNAT or LB is taken on a
>> > gateway router, such that it is necessary for the reverse
>> >
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
> > 2. If a stateful action such as DNAT or LB is taken on a
> > gateway router, such that it is necessary for the reverse
> > packet flow to come back to the same gateway router,
> > then there should be an SNAT
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 7:16 PM, Mickey Spiegel wrote:
>
> See reply at the bottom.
>
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > It seems to me that the root of the problem has to do with
>> > three issues:
>> > 1. SNAT (and
See reply at the bottom.
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
> It seems to me that the root of the problem has to do with
> > three issues:
> > 1. SNAT (and DNAT) rules should not apply to ct.rpl traffic,
> > instead only UNSNAT (and UNDNAT) rules should
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Mickey Spiegel wrote:
>
> Interesting problem. See comments inline.
>
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Gurucharan Shetty wrote:
>>
>> When multiple gateway routers exist, a packet can
>> enter any gateway router. Once the
Interesting problem. See comments inline.
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Gurucharan Shetty wrote:
> When multiple gateway routers exist, a packet can
> enter any gateway router. Once the packet reaches its
> destination, its reverse direction should be via the
> same gateway