On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Thursday 2008-07-03 14:39, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: > > > >One can find a lot of smaller and bigger missing pieces, like a new table, > >new hook, if we'd associate a 'routing table' to a 'chain in the iptables > >route table', then we'd need a default policy support (i.e. default route) > >for the user defined chains too, etc. > > User-defined chains always have an implicit policy of 'RETURN', > and I would not turn a knob on that property anytime. Routing cannot be replaced by netfilter 'route' table without supporting a 'default policy' (as default route) in the user defined chains (as routing tables). > The default policy for the main chain is of course 'UNREACHABLE'. Hm, I don't understand you: if we want to replace routing with a 'route' table, then the default policy (i.e. the default route) cannot be 'UNREACHABLE'. Unless you intend to define the 'default route' as the last rule in any chain... Best regards, Jozsef - E-mail : kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxx PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary -- 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
