On Nov 7 2007 17:36, krcmar@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >I am sorry for what could be a stupid question, but _why_ is the MARK >target allowed only within the `mangle' table? It does _not_ alter the >packet in any way (which I suppose is the reason for all the mangling >targets to be limited to the mangle table, e. g. destroying checksums). Yes, it's bad, and has been brought up a number of times. http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/12/176 if you like to jump in. >I need some information from tests being performed in the `raw' >table to be reused in other tables, and the mark associated with packet >seems to me to be the only place to note the information. Am I right? You could (ab)use CONNMARK, or modify the MARK code so that it allows it to set the mark from elsewhere. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
