On Wednesday 2008-04-09 17:15, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> >>> #define AF_INET 2 /* Internet IP Protocol */ >>> #define AF_ATMPVC 8 /* ATM PVCs */ >>> #define AF_INET6 10 /* IP version 6 */ #define AF_BLUETOOTH 31 >> >>> after decoupling them we don't really care about clashes >>> anymore, so we might still use zero for ARP and AF_INET6 >>> as highest value. >> >> I have a bad feeling about it, though.. maybe someone wants >> to add a PF_LOCAL filter one day, and if NFPROTO_ARP is >> exported, that'd be really bad - more than currently even. > > PF_LOCAL? And why would it matter, if we decouple the > values they simply have nothing in common anymore except > the a few old values for compatibility (IP,IP6,BRIDGE). Are you suggesting to split the AF and NFPROTO list? (Took me quite some time..) A few concerns. If so, how would you deal with the addition of a new, real, protocol? Suppose someone added support for the semifictional IPv5, say AF_INET5=42 or so. How would this affect the NFPROTO list? -- 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
