/* HINT: Search archives @ http://www.indyramp.com/masq/ before posting! */
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fuzzy Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 8:35 AM
> To: Gregory Leblanc
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ip_masq_new(proto=udp): no free ports
>
>
> Gregory Leblanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > That sounds reasonable, although it might be nice to have
> an option in
> > the kernel to enable more ports that that, with a warning
> about why it
> > could cause problems.
>
> Well, unless you're going to do the work yourself, you'll
> probably need
> to contact the masquerade developers. They have their own
> mailing list,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, which you can send to. I don't think I've
> actually seen any of the maintainers on this list...
Well, as soon as I teach myself some modern programming language (I don't
think they'd appreciate a kernel patch written in BASIC) maybe I'll hack on
that. Or maybe I'll justemail the dev list. Thanks for the pointer.
>
> > I believe that a firewall should be a firewall, and NOTHING else,
> > because what good does it to do have a firewall if people can still
> > hack fingerd on that machine, and change your firewall rules.
>
> Well, point well taken, in a corporate world where resources
> are easy to
> come by, but I think you'll find a good number of folks on
> this list are
> just playing with simple home networks. But there's not reason Masq
> can't be suitable for both. :)
Exactly! That's why we need a kernel option. :) I'm actually using it for
my home network, but I want to use it "on the job" since I'm a network
admin.
> I said "decrease", not "increase." Basically, the BEGIN and
D'OH! I read that three times, and I couldn't figure it out. Decrease
makes MUCH more sense, I just couldn't logic it out.
>
> > > I think masq *can* support masquerading using multiple outbound IP
> > > addresses, but you would have to somehow configure your routing
> > > subsystem to send packets via one or the other interface,
> according
> > > to traffic rules.
> >
> > Actually, I wasn't thinking multiple interfaces, I was thinking
> > multiple IP addresses. As in one NIC with two or three IP addresses
> > on it.
>
> Well, that's how multiple IP addresses are implemented: as multiple
> interfaces. The interfaces have different names, like eth0:0, eth0:1,
> and they are all serviced by the same NIC, but they are still
> considered
> just as separate from each other by the kernel, as ppp0 and eth0 would
> be.
Oops, I've never used multiple IPs on one NIC under linux, so I wasn't aware
of that. Hmm...
>
> You can point your default route to eth0:2, but then all packets are
> going to go out that interface, and have that interface's IP address.
> So you would need a more complex routing package installed, so that,
> say, traffic from one subnet gets routed to one interface, and from
> another goes to another interface. Or perhaps odd-numbered
> destination
> IP's go out one interface, even-numbered go out the other..
Well, I would actually think that using something like BGP or OPSF would be
better for this than simple packet swapping. RIP might work, but it's
really not a good routing protocol.
>
> Obviously I am not a network professional. :)
Actually, that wasn't obvious at all.
Greg
_______________________________________________
Masq maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Admin requests can be handled at http://www.indyramp.com/masq-list/ -- THIS INCLUDES
UNSUBSCRIBING!
or email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE read the HOWTO and search the archives before posting.
You can start your search at http://www.indyramp.com/masq/
Please keep general linux/unix/pc/internet questions off the list.
