On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 11:51:17PM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote: > I applied up to 2/3, I just have one doubt here, and a nit: > > On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 19:53:55 +1000 > David Gibson wrote: > > > We usually avoid NAT, but in a few cases we need to apply address > > translations. The current logic for this on inbound flows has some > > inconsistencies: > > > > * For IPv4 (but not IPv6) we translated unspecified source addresses > > ...I know we already talked about this, but 0.0.0.0/8 is not just > unspecified, it also means "this host on this network" (RFC 6890, > 2.2.2), and that's the reason for this apparent inconsistency (:: > doesn't). By the way, somebody was reminded of this just recently: Good point. I've changed that behaviour for the next spin. And added comments about this for the next sucker who notices the apparent inconsistency :). -- David Gibson (he or they) | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you, not the other way | around. http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson