On Tuesday 2012-12-18 14:23, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 12-12-17 08:28 AM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>
>> With act_xt2 as drafted, it instead invokes a chain, which would
>>
>> 1. leave the construction of the target data and calling it
>> to the subsystems they conceptually belong to - the packet filter
>> 2. lets you do matches, jumps and all that.
>
>I like #2. For #1 as long as it doesnt deviate from desire to have
>one or more instances of targets, we should be fine.
Chains can store multiple targets, so no loss.
>> Good thing you ask. Chain names are unique within a netns, and this
>> act_xtables.c draft looks at the packet to get to know its netns, so
>> that seems fine.
>
> My motivation for that question:
> Is it possible to ignore the hook and tablename and just use the chain
> name?
1. table
First, I think some targets need to relax their restrictions, such as
with xt_DSCP.
Then, only a handful of extensions remain: CT, <all NATs>,
TPROXY and REJECT. Would anyone want to call these from act_ipt?
I doubt it. :)
2. hooks
Extensions with hook limit: <NAT>, TPROXY, REJECT, CLASSIFY.
Again, I don't quite see the value of attempting to NAT from act_ipt.
CLASSIFY {c|sh?}ould be relaxed, unless I am missing something.
--
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
