On 03/02/11 15:23, Hans Schillstrom wrote: > On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 14:51 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> On 03/02/11 14:34, Hans Schillstrom wrote: >> this assumption is not valid in NAT handlings. > > That's true, because I want to avoid conntrack > >> If you want consistent hashing with NAT handlings you'll have to make >> this stateful and use the conntrack source and reply directions of the >> original tuples (thus making it stateful). That may be a problem because >> some people may want to use this without enabling connection tracking. > > What about a compilation switch or a sysctl ? or better some option for iptables. >> Are you using this for (uplink) load balancing? > > Actually in both ways > - in front of a bunch of ipvs > - and in the payloads for outgoing traffic. > >> Could you also include one realistic example in the patch description on >> how this is used? > Sure, I guess you mean some nice ascii graphics, > iptables and ip route commands That would be great, for the record. >> If this is accepted, I think this has to be merge with the (already >> overloaded) MARK target. > > I have no opinion about that, others might have. Better put it in the MARK target with a new revision. I think that Patrick is going to ask you this. I don't know why I had the impression that MARK is overload, it's actually fine at a first glance to the code. -- 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
