Hello, On Thursday, 2008 April 10 at 6:56:48 +0200, Eric Leblond wrote: > Hello, > > On Tuesday, 2008 April 8 at 1:56:52 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > Eric Leblond wrote: > > > On Saturday, 2008 April 5 at 17:10:59 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > >> Eric Leblond wrote: > > > 'decision' keyword is not really a good choice. > > > > I see, however, why isn't --nflog-prefix enough to label the logs from > > iptables? > > Yes, but it forces user to define a system to be able to know if > decision is DROP or ACCEPT. For example, all prefix have to be labelled > like [DA]:$MYSTRING. Well, it works but it overload prefix which is less > human readable. Furthermore, it steals some bits in the prefix field > which is in ULOG rather small. Not receiving a response to this mail make me thing about what I will need to do to have the same feature without the 'state' flag: A standard logging packet logging table contains packet that have been dropped or accepted. One of the most relevant question for an administrator is: "Which packet have been dropped with this criteria ?". Thus, we need an easy and *fast* mean to differentiate dropped and aceepted packet. IMHO, a 'state' flag is one of the easiest and cleanest solution. The computation overload is really small compares to a parsing of the prefix. Furthermore, this approach is not disruptive with firewall rules generator who already have their log prefix. BR, -- Eric Leblond INL: http://www.inl.fr/ NuFW: http://www.nufw.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
