On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 03:11:12PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 05:53:53PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 05:01:53PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > > [...] > > > The nftables numgen expression works differently: > > > > Phil, if you think we need a 1:1 mapping so iptables users moving to > > nftables don't get confused, I'll be fine to take an update to > > nft_numgen so we accomodate a new NFT_NG_PROBABILISTIC mode or so. > > Well, implementing the translator wasn't exactly trivial, but in general > I don't think numgen is particularly hard to use. Of course an explicit > probability mode might make things easier, but then I guess it wouldn't > fit into the LHS/RHS scheme anymore. Right, we would need a specific statement for this. Question is how useful this can be as statement. The usecases I found for this are: 1) Load balancing, which is already covered by numgen via maps. 2) Simulate packet loss. With a statement we could combine this probability thing with flow tables, but still I wonder how useful can be to match packets using probability at a per-flow level, a.k.a. hashprobability. Florian already sent a patch to add an alias for this [1], problem is that this break symmetry between what we add to the kernel and what we may get, and that is going to break the rule deletion by description. Just a brain dump on this in case anyone want to spend jiffies on this. [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/591534/ -- 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
