On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 5:54 PM Numan Siddique wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2024, 7:46 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>
>> On 4/8/24 09:19, Ales Musil wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 10:35 PM Numan Siddique wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 2:28 AM Ales Musil wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024, 7:46 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> On 4/8/24 09:19, Ales Musil wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 10:35 PM Numan Siddique wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 2:28 AM Ales Musil wrote:
> >>
> >>> The current packet injection loses ct_state in the process. When
> >>>
On 4/8/24 09:19, Ales Musil wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 10:35 PM Numan Siddique wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 2:28 AM Ales Musil wrote:
>>
>>> The current packet injection loses ct_state in the process. When
>>> the ct_state is lost we might commit to DNAT zone and perform
>>>
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 10:35 PM Numan Siddique wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 2:28 AM Ales Musil wrote:
>
>> The current packet injection loses ct_state in the process. When
>> the ct_state is lost we might commit to DNAT zone and perform
>> zero SNAT after the packet injection. This
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 2:28 AM Ales Musil wrote:
> The current packet injection loses ct_state in the process. When
> the ct_state is lost we might commit to DNAT zone and perform
> zero SNAT after the packet injection. This causes the first session
> to be wrong as the reply packets are not
The current packet injection loses ct_state in the process. When
the ct_state is lost we might commit to DNAT zone and perform
zero SNAT after the packet injection. This causes the first session
to be wrong as the reply packets are not unDNATted.
Instead of re-injecting the packet back into the
