|
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 9:45 PM Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > But the following packet is different from your
> > initial posting. Why client connects directly to the real server?
> > Is it allowed to have two conntracks with equal reply tuple
> > 192.168.99.4:8080 -> 192.168.99.6:15280 and should we support
> > such kind of setups?
>
> I don't even see how it would work, if you allow
>
> C1 -> S
> C2 -> S
>
> ... in conntrack and you receive packet from S, does that need to
> go to C1 or C2?
>
> Such duplicate CT entries are free'd (refused) at nf_confirm (
> conntrack table insertion) time.
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p TCP -j MASQUERADE
Indeed, there is nothing wrong with this logic, but after I added the MASQUERADE
rule, it seems that I did snat before confirm causing the source port to change
|
