From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH NF_CONNTRACK] compatible ipt_conntrack Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:01:38 +0200 Message-ID: <431377B2.9080102@trash.net> References: <200506200919.j5K9JIhl022823@toshiba.co.jp> <20050828122130.GH4244@rama.de.gnumonks.org> <4312EE29.9040102@trash.net> <200508291539.j7TFdujr019558@toshiba.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: laforge@netfilter.org, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, usagi-core@linux-ipv6.org Return-path: To: Yasuyuki KOZAKAI In-Reply-To: <200508291539.j7TFdujr019558@toshiba.co.jp> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Yasuyuki KOZAKAI wrote: > Hi, Patrick, Harald, > > From: Patrick McHardy > Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:14:49 +0200 > > >>I feel reluctant to add complexity just so users can switch between >>them at runtime. It may be useful for debugging, but it doesn't look >>like a realistic usage scenario. So I would also prefer having a >>compile-time choice. > > I re-read old mails, and I seemed to mis-understand your intention. > I was trying to make possible to compile both of ip_conntrack and > nf_conntrack as module, and let user choose "Which is linked with match/target > modules ?". But your opinion was that user choose ip_conntrack or > nf_conntrack to compile, right ? Yes, sorry for not beeing clearer on this before. I was always more in favour of a compile-time solution, but would also be fine with a simple and cleanly working run-time solution. But I believe any extra-complexity for a run-time solution comes with little gain for the user. > Then, let user choose ip_conntrack/nf_conntrack to compile. > > From: Harald Welte > Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 14:21:30 +0200 > > >>1) ip_conntrack and nf_conntrack can never be used both together in one >> system. However, you can compile both of them as modules, and then >> decide to load one or the other. > > The drawback of compile-time choice is that user cannot use ip_conntrack > for IPv4 NAT and use nf_conntrack for only IPv6 stateful tracking. This is the > reason why I tried above thing, but I changed my mind. This will not be > problem because IPv4 NAT with nf_conntrack would be implemented in future, > I think. I agree, even if it is a problem, it will only be short-term.