Re: [ANNOUNCE] ipset 6.5 released

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

 




The latter itself exhausts the maximal number of elements in the set, so the error message is normal.
Is this a constraint coming from the "maxelem" value or the hash size? Could this be corrected by increasing either of these?

The way I look at it, the "old" iptree(map) type sets should be converted to
hash:net, not hash:ip to avoid this error.

That's too late, I can't change the mapping from hash:ip to hash:net.
(And if the mapping pointed to hash:net, you were surprised then that after adding say 192.68.0.0/24 to the set, you couldn't delete 192.68.0.1 from it. :-)
Nope. I am aware that deleting elements in 6.x should be done on the whole range when added, not just a single ip address (I am now clear as to why that happens and I think it makes sense in the way it is designed).

If you are to provide "backward" compatibility (or compatibility of any sort) with iptree(map) sets then you should make sure that at least members of that type of set could, at least, register without problem within the new set to which iptree(map) is converted. It seems to me that is not the case - with 6.5 at least. If it is difficult to maintain such compatibility you could do what you have already done with the "bindings" in previous versions of ipset - just drop it and ask users to switch to the new type. Frankly, it is not that difficult to switch over to the new type if one is aware of the implications, so it wouldn't be a big shock.

--
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