Re: new ip settings method acceptibility

> I'm considering adding a new method for ip settings and I'd like some
> input before I go write the whole thing. Primarily, I'm wondering if
> this feature would have any chance of being merged since it will have
> very few users. My method accomplishes a similar thing to the
> "shared"

I'm afraid you would have better chance with options tweaking the 'shared'
method if you need some tweaking at all. Misusing the 'method' for corner
cases has little chance to be accepted.

> connection method, but it's a little different. It will be called
> "forwarded" or "proxied". It is used for connecting to a network on
> behalf of another host.

The 'shared' method is about providing network connectivity. I don't understand
whether you are going to provide network connectivity or connect to a network.

> It's how I make my cellular wireless router
> work in situations where I need to offer the wireless connection as
> if
> it was just a normal Ethernet connection.

There is not such a big difference between wireless and ethernet
connections. Their IP configuration is managed the same way.

> The setup involves connecting to a network normally, but not adding
> the acquired (via PPP, DHCP, etc) address to the interface

So you recieve a DHCP address and you won't use it as the interface
address? Why?

> a different address is added the to interface instead

How is it determined?

> and the original
> address from the network is saved; dhcpd is configured to offer that
> single address on the other interfaces.

Wouldn't bridging serve this purpose better?

> Additionally, an SNAT target
> is added to the nat table's POSTROUTING chain so that this middle
> device can also use the connection.

To me this looks much more complicated than it should be. What do you
gain using this method instead of network sharing? (And also instead
of bridging that is planned for NetworkManager?)

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]