Messages in this thread | | | From | "Matthias Urlichs" <> | Date | Fri, 11 Dec 1998 04:06:54 +0100 | Subject | Re: Multicast and Masquerade clash |
| |
Hi,
Nigel Metheringham: > A shortish term fix, which I don't like much since it puts some policy > into the kernel, would be to make the demasquerade conditional on the > stuff not being multicast. Multicast has a well defined address range set > so detecting if the source/dest are multicast sets should be easy enough > to do. > Multicast addresses need special handling anyway, so that isn't really a problem IMHO.
> Outgoing stuff can be handled by firewall rules (different problem to that > described above anyhow). You would normally use a router of some sort > rather than trying to shove it down the masq tunnel anyhow. > Right. (Or an mrouted-controlled tunnel, in which case it's unicast again.)
> This still doesn't fix what happens if someone wants to bind a unicast > port into the masq range. > Nobody should need to. Only multicast is special that way.
-- Matthias Urlichs | noris network GmbH | smurf@noris.de | ICQ: 20193661
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |