On 21 Dec 1998 23:14:29 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Lynne) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>If both IPv6 and masq are active, incoming v6-in-v4 packets are
>>discarded by masq. Quick and dirty workaround against 2.1.131, by no
>>means the full fix for masq and tunnels. [snip]
>
>Similiar problems exist with tunnels and masquerading. In some cases incoming
>tunnel packets can end up being checked by ip_fw_demasquerade() which will
>fail causing the packet to be dropped. [snip]
I did say it was a quick and dirty work around :). The whole question
of masq, firewalls and tunnels gives me the shivers. Do you masq
before tunnelling, after tunnelling or both? How many levels down into
the packet do you go for a firewall? How do you hook into v6 in v4 in
GRE? Why does the word "STREAMS" keep floating through my mind?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
