On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:18:04 -0500 "Christian Benvenuti (benve)" <benve@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The patch description and the code are clearly saying that STP is > an exception, but I am just worried about the users. > Maybe a proper description in the iptables help is sufficient. > > Users may otherwise try to use this new hook for STP too > (for example to generate logs or produce statistics/counters > or divert STP traffic to userspace, etc). STP traffic already goes to userspace. And gets processed by the LOCAL_IN chain. So I don't think it is needed. > Out of curiosity, ... if this gets accepted, shouldn't you provide > NF_BR_LINK_LOCAL_OUT too? > Or maybe you should call it NF_BR_LINK_LOCAL_FWD instead of > NF_BR_LINK_LOCAL_IN? Thanks, that is a better name, I'll change it in next version. _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
