From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Herve Eychenne Subject: Re: iptables-save dump option Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:18:16 +0200 Sender: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <20040819101816.GA4883@eychenne.org> References: <20040817204256.GC23109@eychenne.org> <20040819101422.GE3921@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: To: Harald Welte , Netfilter Development Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040819101422.GE3921@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> Errors-To: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:14:22PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 10:42:56PM +0200, Herve Eychenne wrote: > > Hi, > >=20 > > Can someone tell me (Harald ?) what is the interest of the -d (--dump= ) > > option in iptables-save? I don't see it, as it does the same as > > iptables-save without any arguments... (and it is undocumented in the > > manpage) > The initial idea was to make a binary dump instead of the ASCII parsed > save file format. This was never implemented though (and I don't think > it's worth adding it anymore). There is already a "--binary" option (not implemented, indeed) for that... So my question remains... Herve --=20 _ (=B0=3D Herv=E9 Eychenne //) v_/_ WallFire project: http://www.wallfire.org/