From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: generalized packet modification (inc tcpflags, adding options) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:05:32 +0200 Sender: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <3F006DDC.5010900@trash.net> References: <16128.27034.85530.861667@isis.cs3-inc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Mohammed Awad , Craig Shelley , netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Don Cohen In-Reply-To: <16128.27034.85530.861667@isis.cs3-inc.com> 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 Hi Don, Don Cohen wrote: >It's not immediately clear to me what language would be best for >describing such modifications and that would probably be worth >discussing on this list. For that matter, it's not clear what >language is best for describing the match. My u32 language was >designed to do what seems to be needed for IPv4 but is not good >for IPv6. I recall someone (Patrick?) supplied a BPF analog of the >u32 match. (Where can I find that, BTW?) Is that language capable of >specifying data modification? Of course other important issues >include run time efficiency and convenience for the user. > I never made that match. It was just an idea which came up while hacking ppp-filters for isdn, but i let it be because of the fixed-size match data problem. However, BPF is only for specifying filter expressions, not for mangling data. Bye, Patrick