[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Chris Buechler <cbuechler at gmail dot com>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Server NAT does not work?
 Date:  Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:05:13 -0400
On 4/13/05, Roman Kuznetsov <rk at systola dot de> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Claude Morin [mailto:klodefactor at gmail dot com]
> > Sent: Dienstag, 12. April 2005 19:28
> > To: Roman Kuznetsov
> > Cc: Chris Buechler; m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> > Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Server NAT does not work?
> >
> > This proxy ARP question has arisen a few times recently. For
> > the interest of list members who may not understand proxy ARP
> > fully, here's an explanation:
> > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk361/technologies_tech_
> > note09186a0080094adb.shtml
> >
> 
> This is exactly why I said it is illogical.
> 
> I know what Proxy ARP is and even in this cisco document it says (my accents):
> "Proxy ARP is the technique in which one host, usually a router, answers ARP
> requests intended for *another* machine. By "faking" its identity, the router
> accepts responsibility for *routing* packets to the "real" destination."
> 
> This is what got me confused: one usually uses Proxy ARP to proxy requests to
> another machine, not the same machine. A common practice for having multiply
> addresses on the same interface is by means of aliasing, nor by proxying.
> Otherwise this can be very confusing, since means of the task resolution seems
> to have different application.
> 

It's not going to the same machine though, the IP in question is being
assigned to entries that are NAT'ed to hosts behind m0n0wall.  It is
indeed going to another machine.

-Chris