Re: Multicast and Masquerade clash

Matthias Urlichs (smurf@noris.de)
Fri, 11 Dec 1998 04:06:54 +0100


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/