On Nov 30 2007 00:27, Patrick McHardy wrote: >> I would have liked to do the same for MARK, but I suspect it is not >> quite backwards-compatible with respect to user scripts and >> iptables-save output. So what could be done? >> * -j MARK2 --set-mark 0x81/0x7F >> * -j MARK --set-mark-v2 0x81/0x7F >> other ideas, thoughts, criticism? > > Check out: > > http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter-devel/2004-June/015718.html > > it can be done fully compatible and can express an arbitary amount of > combined bit operations. > Well yes yes... but that was not what I was asking about. I was asking what name I should give to the option that enables "new-style" handling (origmark & ~mask ^ val): --set-extended-mark val/mask because it is not sooo extended after all, just a different notation of what libxt_MARK takes right now. - 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
