Am 22.06.20 um 14:42 schrieb Pablo Neira Ayuso: > Hi Phil, > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 04:11:57PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: >> Hi Pablo, >> >> I remember you once asked for the benchmark scripts I used to compare >> performance of iptables-nft with -legacy in terms of command overhead >> and caching, as detailed in a blog[1] I wrote about it. I meanwhile >> managed to polish the scripts a bit and push them into a public repo, >> accessible here[2]. I'm not sure whether they are useful for regular >> runs (or even CI) as a single run takes a few hours and parallel use >> likely kills result precision. > > So what is the _technical_ incentive for using the iptables blob > interface (a.k.a. legacy) these days then? > > The iptables-nft frontend is transparent and it outperforms the legacy > code for dynamic rulesets. it is not transparent enough because it don't understand classical ipset my shell scripts creating the ruleset, cahins and ipsets can be switched from iptables-legacy to iptables-nft and before the reboot despite the warning that both are loaded it *looked* more or less fine comparing the rulset from both backends i gave it one try and used "iptables-nft-restore" and "ip6tables-nft", after reboot nothing worked at all via console i called "firewall.sh" again wich would delete all rules and chains followed by re-create them, no success and errors that things already exist please don't consider to drop iptables-legacy, it just works and im miss a compelling argument to rework thousands of hours
