From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/20120507/007248.html | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 74 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/20120507/007248.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/20120507/007248.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/20120507/007248.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/20120507/007248.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..cca94f7b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/20120507/007248.html @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ + + + + [Mageia-discuss] Odd entry in log file + + + + + + + + + +

[Mageia-discuss] Odd entry in log file

+ Frank Griffin + ftg at roadrunner.com +
+ Mon May 7 23:04:14 CEST 2012 +

+
+ +
On 05/07/2012 04:50 PM, Maarten Vanraes wrote:
+> Op maandag 07 mei 2012 14:23:44 schreef Frank Griffin:
+> [...]
+>
+> it's like this:
+>
+> mostly people natting will do:
+>
+> iptables -s 192.168.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE
+>
+> which means internal traffic on 192.168.3.2 would go outside without being
+> natted. if someone nearby uses 192.168.3.2 as a local network ip, it would get
+> martians, since that network is coming from an unexpected source interface.
+>
+Yes, but it would go to the ISP gateway and get discarded.  Why would it 
+be seen by anything else on the ISP subnet, unless the NIC were in 
+promiscuous mode ?  And if that (promiscuous mode) were the case, why 
+would iptables complain ?
+
+ + + +
+

+ +
+More information about the Mageia-discuss +mailing list
+ -- cgit v1.2.1