Re: MARK target extension

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 15:43, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
> I do agree that it is nice to have the functionality of xor. 
> 
> May I propose that to solve this a userspace option is added "--xor-mark
> value", and that mask 0 is probited in --set-mark if this representation
> is used.

Seems like a good way. I'm also going to add --and-mark and --or-mark as
alternative representations. I'll post the patch before applying it to
see if everyone is happy.

> > One of my concerns was that MARK and CONNMARK should look and behave
> > the same way. We should either change CONNMARK to also use xor, or
> > change your patch to using or. Henrik, what do you think ?
> 
> I have no problem adjusting CONNMARK if a acceptable notation is found. It
> has not yet been submitted to the kernel even if this has been favorly
> discussed many times already.

Yes, I know. I hope it will go in soon ..

Regards
Patrick