Re: [question] ipt_CLUSTERIP and address length

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 01:54:50PM CET, jengelh@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> On Thursday 2010-02-25 13:18, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>>>>> I want to ask if there is any particular reason for ipt_CLUSTERIP to support
>>>>> only address length of 6 (ETH_ALEN)? It seems to me reasonable for this to work
>>>>> even with another types of network hw with different addr_len.
>>>> None that I'm aware of, but the length is also used in the ABI,
>>>> so you presently can't supply larger addresses.
>>> Not directly related to this but I wanted to discuss this time ago. Now
>>> that we have xt_CLUSTER I think that we can deprecate ipt_CLUSTERIP.
>> xt_CLUSTER - where in the tree would that be?
> 
> I was trying to find it too. I guess it stands out of it (at least net-next).

sorry, it's xt_cluster, no capitalization.

pablo@decadence:~/devel/scm/git/nf-2.6$ ls net/netfilter/xt_cluster.c

It's there since quite some time.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Netfilter Development]     [Linux Kernel Networking Development]     [Netem]     [Berkeley Packet Filter]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Advanced Routing & Traffice Control]     [Bugtraq]

  Powered by Linux