>>> The reason why I'm skeptical is that when a packet comes in on your
>>> cablemodem, the sending server is expecting ACKs from that same IP.
>>> Yet, on this setup, the ACKs come back from the analog modem with a
>>> different IP address. Why doesn't the remote server complain about
>>> this?
>>
>> The packets sent over the modem go to the same ISP that routes traffic
>> to your cable modem. As such, they are free to masquerade the traffic
>> to the remote destination to make it see one IP address. :)
>
>But wouldn't the routing be set up to be:
>
>+-------+ server requests +-------+
>| Modem | ----------------> | ppp0 |
>+-------+ | | |
>+-------+ | V |
>| Cable | <---------------> | eth1 |
>| Modem | | ^ |
>+-------+ | | |
> | V | +-----------+
> | eth0 | <---> | Local Net |
> +-------+ +-----------+
>
>ie. incoming traffic on ppp0 would reply via eth1 and the cable modem.
> all traffic on eth0 would be masqueraded on eth1.
>
>It seems to me that the ACK would still come from ppp0's address, it would
>simply take a different path back.
Right.. the destination address would get the packet back to the source
but my issue is that the SOURCE address of the ACK would NOT be ppp0's
IP but ETH1.
--David
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| David A. Ranch - Linux/Networking/PC hardware [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
!---- ----!
`----- For more detailed info, see http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~dranch -----'
_______________________________________________
Masq maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://tiffany.indyramp.com/mailman/listinfo/masq
Admin requests can be handled by web (above) or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
