On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, Mr Dash Four wrote: > > > Wouldn't you agree that this is a better solution than registering > > > twice as many members in a particular set in order to get the match > > > I need? > > > > Given that ports are only meaningful in the context of a protocol I don't > > think that makes sense. > You are mistaken! I've never actually stated, nor implied, that protocols are > 'meaningless' when ports are specified or used - I stated that I am not > interested in *matching* the protocol as for me this part of the match is > irrelevant - there are plenty of examples where a particular service can > employ either tcp or udp protocol on the same port - see below for examples. I could not come up with a good solution. It is not possible to avoid double lookup in the set if the elements may have (say hash:ip,port type of set) the forms: ipaddr,tcp:port ipaddr,udp:port ipadd,tcpudp:port But if the double-lookup is required, then better add all tcp and udp port variants and go with a single-lookup. Or if you have uniform ports for all elements, you can use two set matches: ipset create hash:ip ipaddrs ipset create bitmap:port ports ... -m set --match-set ipaddrs dst -m set --match-set ports dst ... 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
