From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Menno Smits Subject: Re: Simulatenous use of LOG and ULOG on 2.6.14 Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:23:53 +1000 Message-ID: <437D02F9.9020107@netboxblue.com> References: <436EF34E.2030806@netboxblue.com> <20051112101727.GC10584@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel Return-path: To: Harald Welte In-Reply-To: <20051112101727.GC10584@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> 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 Hi Harald, > The idea is that in the long term there will only be one LOG target > that everybody uses. Ok, thanks for confirming this. > One thing that I've been thinking about, though, was having > priorities. So when you use ULOG/NFLOG and your daemon dies, it would > fall back to the LOG/dmesg backend, if that is available. Interesting idea but not too useful for us. We'd like to have syslogging and ULOG/NFLOG at the same time. The problem has been worked around by assigning a specific ULOG netlink group for traffic to be "syslogged" and using a simple daemon to collect, parse and log these packets. >> How do I make this work as before? I need to be able to use both >> ULOG and LOG at the same time. Will it work if enable >> CONFIG_NETFILTER_NETLINK and related options and port the daemon to >> the new libnetfilter_log library? I'd really prefer to not have to >> touch the daemon at this stage but will if that's the only answer. > > > no, it wouldn't be any different. Great. I have since confirmed that this is true. Our existing logging daemon still works. Menno Scanned by the NetBox from NetBox Blue (http://netboxblue.com/)