Hi, On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 12:40:39AM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: [...] > Another alternative is to deprecate implicit rule add altogether > so users would have to move to 'nft add rule ...'. Isn't this required for nested syntax? I didn't check, but does your arbitrary table/chain name support work also when restoring a ruleset in that nested syntax? Another interesting aspect might be arbitrary set names - 'set' is also a valid keyword used in rules, this fact killed my approach with start conditions. ;) Cheers, Phil
