| 1 |
Am Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:30:11 +1100 |
| 2 |
schrieb Adam Carter <adamcarter3@×××××.com>: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > schrieb Dan Johansson <Dan.Johansson@×××.nu>: |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> [...] |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> The general term for that is "policy routing". |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> If you're doing it to hack around some network weirdness that you |
| 12 |
> cant fix because you dont have control of the network, it might be a |
| 13 |
> necessary evil, but its generally a bad idea, Think about routing |
| 14 |
> asymmetry, and whether you should use a NAT to prevent that side |
| 15 |
> effect. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
There are two gateways that probably will NAT. The machine itself does |
| 18 |
not NAT as far as I understood. So there will be no problem with |
| 19 |
asymmetric routing. Setting up NAT on an internal machine not being the |
| 20 |
gateway itself would be unnecessary evil. And it would not help this |
| 21 |
case as you still need to route packets to the proper (still internal) |
| 22 |
gateway. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Regards, |
| 26 |
Kai |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Replies to list-only preferred. |
Archives