Re: NAT to a broadcast addess using iptables?
- From: news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 27 Nov 2006 12:57:03 -0800
Pascal Hambourg wrote:
The problem with sending unicast packets to a sleeping host is ARP
resolution. If your router supports the 'arp' or 'ip' commands, you
could try to add a static ARP entry for your target IP address on the
router :
$ arp -s <target_ip_addr> <target_mac_addr>
or
$ ip neigh add <target_ip_addr> lladdr <target_mac_addr> dev <lan_iface>
But, the magic packet can be sent to either the mac address of the
target or the broadcast ethernet address. As I planned for the latter,
I didn't think that ARP resolution is a problem. Hovever, if I
understand you correctly, there's no way to configure the router to
allow the directed subnet broadcast, so you're saying that I'd have to
direct a packet to a specific IP address and use a static arp entry to
force the packet to go to a specific mac address?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: NAT to a broadcast addess using iptables?
- From: Pascal Hambourg
- Re: NAT to a broadcast addess using iptables?
- References:
- NAT to a broadcast addess using iptables?
- From: news
- Re: NAT to a broadcast addess using iptables?
- From: Pascal Hambourg
- Re: NAT to a broadcast addess using iptables?
- From: news
- Re: NAT to a broadcast addess using iptables?
- From: Pascal Hambourg
- NAT to a broadcast addess using iptables?
- Prev by Date: Re: Two routes to a host: how to make sure which noe is used when?
- Next by Date: Re: NAT to a broadcast addess using iptables?
- Previous by thread: Re: NAT to a broadcast addess using iptables?
- Next by thread: Re: NAT to a broadcast addess using iptables?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|