On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 4:42 PM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> On 4/6/23 16:26, Ales Musil wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 1:17 PM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/29/23 16:57, Numan Siddique wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 6:15 AM Dumitru Ceara
> wrote:
>
> On 3/29/23 11:20, Ales
On 4/6/23 16:26, Ales Musil wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 1:17 PM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>
>> On 3/29/23 16:57, Numan Siddique wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 6:15 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
On 3/29/23 11:20, Ales Musil wrote:
> There are essentially three problems with the
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 1:17 PM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> On 3/29/23 16:57, Numan Siddique wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 6:15 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> >>
> >> On 3/29/23 11:20, Ales Musil wrote:
> >>> There are essentially three problems with the current
> >>> combination of DGP + SNAT + LB:
On 3/29/23 16:57, Numan Siddique wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 6:15 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>>
>> On 3/29/23 11:20, Ales Musil wrote:
>>> There are essentially three problems with the current
>>> combination of DGP + SNAT + LB:
>>>
>>> 1) The first packet is being SNATed in common zone due
>>>
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 6:15 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>
> On 3/29/23 11:20, Ales Musil wrote:
> > There are essentially three problems with the current
> > combination of DGP + SNAT + LB:
> >
> > 1) The first packet is being SNATed in common zone due
> > to a problem with pinctrl not preserving
On 3/29/23 11:20, Ales Musil wrote:
> There are essentially three problems with the current
> combination of DGP + SNAT + LB:
>
> 1) The first packet is being SNATed in common zone due
> to a problem with pinctrl not preserving ct_mark/ct_label.
> The commit would create a SNAT entry within the
There are essentially three problems with the current
combination of DGP + SNAT + LB:
1) The first packet is being SNATed in common zone due
to a problem with pinctrl not preserving ct_mark/ct_label.
The commit would create a SNAT entry within the same with DNAT
entry.
2) The unSNAT for reply
