RE: xt_gateway 20070605 (kernel)

[Amin Azez <azez@ufomechanic.net>]

From: "Patrick McHardy" <kaber@trash.net>
Sent: 15/06/07 18:27
Subject: Re: xt_gateway 20070605 (kernel)

=So far I don't intend to merge it, but I'm also not very opposed
=to it (only reason against it is that its another file to take
=care of when changing say function signatures and it doesn't
=offer anything that we can't already do). Its up to you to
convince me :)

It does one thing well and simply.
For most iptables users, realms is more complicated than replicating route information in the nat table.

Realms are perhaps suitable with a large routing infrastructure under one administration.

Xt_gateway removes the need for the more advanced explanations of the SNAT target that are required from time to time.

Xt_gateway is simple to manage snat when the gateways are out of administrative control.

Xt_gateway is persisted solely with iptables-save.
There is no iproute-save (actually there is, I posted it to the relevant list a few months back but no-one noticed).

I'm not going to try to convince you harder than this. Some directors and shareholders (if they were aware) would probably prefer that you did NOT merge it to the mainline kernel and I also have a duty to them.

However I thank you (and more particularly Jan) for the time you have spent on this.

Sam