On 2019-12-03, at 16:06:52 +0000, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote: > Greetings. The following patch is similar to one I submitted as an > RFC quite a while back (April). Since then I've realised that the > option should have been in the 'set mark' family as opposed to 'save > mark' because 'set' is about setting the ct mark directly, whereas > 'save' is about copying a packet's mark to the ct mark. > > Similarly I've been made aware of the revision infrastructure and now > that I understand that a little more have made use of it for this > change. Hopefully this addresses one of Pablo's concerns. > > I've not been able to address the 'I'd like an nftables version'. > Quite simply it is beyond my knowledge and ability. I am willing to > contribute financially if someone wishes to step up to the nftables > plate...yes I'd like to see the functionality implemented *that* much. I'll do it (no financial contribution required :)). There is one thing I want to find out before I get started. Pablo, comparing the x_tables and nftables connmark implementations I see that nftables doesn't support all the bit-twiddling that x_tables does. Why is this? Was it not wanted or has it just not been imple- mented? J.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
