On Nov 19 2007 18:12, Patrick McHardy wrote: > Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> On Nov 19 2007 17:06, Patrick McHardy wrote: >> > I just read up on your and Jan's discussion, but you were too fast >> > for me :) I'm not sure whether this is really a good candidate >> > for x_tables. IPv4 and IPv6 addrtype have different meanings, the >> > IPv4 addrtype is based on routing, IPv6 solely on the address. >> > Especially things like "--addrtype local" won't work, which is >> > IMO the most useful feature. And since you don't actually add IPv6 >> > support, I don't see any advantage in moving to x_tables. So I >> > think for now I'd prefer a change to the ipt_addrtype match. >> >> IMHO it does not make any difference whether it is xt_*.c or ipt_*.c, >> the cost is quite the same. >> I am all for xt_*.c, because that's the "new shiny" thing. > > x_tables is meant for unified matches and targets, as long as theres > nothing to unify, there's no point in moving it over. So far I think > we only have a single xtables match that doesn't support both IPv4 > and IPv6 (xt_conntrack), and I'd like to keep it that way. > Sorry, can't grant you that wish - I have plans to add IPv6 to xt_conntrack to obsolete ip6t_state, though maybe that takes a bit of time ;-) - 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
