Patrick McHardy írta:
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.
I think x_tables is meant for similar functionality for IPv4 and IPv6
with minor differences. This eliminates possible code duplications, but
the exactly same usage from the user's view is not required.
--
Attila
-
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
