Messages in this thread | | | From | "Peter 'Luna' Runestig" <> | Subject | Re: How does arp work with NAT? | Date | Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:31:46 +0200 |
| |
----- Original Message ----- From: <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru> To: Peter 'Luna' Runestig <peter+linux-kernel@runestig.COM> Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu> Sent: den 25 augusti 1999 17:16 Subject: Re: How does arp work with NAT?
!!! First I must correct myself: Of cource my firewall has two nics! In my original post, it seemed it only had one. This is the correct nic config:
eth0 133.20.12.67 eth0:0 133.20.12.68 eth1 192.168.71.201
> Hello! > > > 0:60:97:15:41:48 ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 0806 60: arp who-has 133.20.12.20 \ > > tell 133.20.12.67 > > ^^ > ... > > It seems that the arp "source address" isn't NAT'ed. Is it supposed to be, or isn't things > > designed that way? > > BTW I see no rules to translate/masquerade this address in your setup, > so that it is difficult to understand your question.
Hmm... isn't this the translating rule:
[root@fd_router /]# ip rule <snip> 32025: from 192.168.71.33 lookup main map-to 133.20.12.68 <snip>
What I (also) forgot to include in my original post:
[root@fd_router /]# ip route list table local <snip> nat 133.20.12.68 via 192.168.71.33 scope host <snip>
> Generally, ARP requests are sent with "source" address of the packet which > hits wire, (provided you did not break kernel with some of patches floating > here). Do you see? It is translated by definition.
No, I'm afraid I lost you here... But according to Matthew G. Marsh <mgm@paktronix.com>, the arp request was correctly send with the nic's primary address as source address.
> Alexey Kuznetsov
Cheers, Peter
- 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/
| |