On 03/02/11 17:06, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Thursday 2011-02-03 17:01, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > >> On 03/02/11 16:42, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Hm, this is actually not straight forward to implement, you'll have to >> use hook functions to avoid the module dependencies with conntrack and >> that's pretty annoying. >> >> I don't come up with a good solution for this. > > If it loads conntrack always, there is the option to shovel it > into xt_connmark.c. the problem is that Hans wants this not to depend on conntrack always. -- 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
