Re: nf_conntrack [was Re: [PATCH 1/4] RFC: fast string matching infrastrure for netfilter]

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>
>>I have actually given up keeping nf_conntrack up to date currently, but
>>I hope we can now really put ip_conntrack in maintenance mode and
>>concentrate
>>on nf_conntrack. Any chance you want to base this on the nf_conntrack
>>patch ?
>>
>
>Actually, what is the opinion that nf_conntrack uses the union of IPv4 and
>IPv6 addresses in the tuples?
>
In my opinion that's something that could also be improved later.

>The infrastructure is there in the patch to support IPv4/IPv6 conntrack
>separatedly in spite of the common code and not to waste so many bytes at
>every IPv4 connections for the sake of supporting IPv6.
>
You mean the get_features stuff and seperate caches ? I'm don't like this
part very much, I thing Rusty's "structure extension stuff" (ct_extend)
is a nicer way to do this, although its probably not useable for the tuples.

> Shouldn't there be
>put more effort into this long standing issue, before swithcing over it?
>  
>
I think we should put ip_conntrack in maintenance mode, than we can
resync nf_conntrack and make changes like this before we submit it.

Regards
Patrick