From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPMARK - version with xtables (for 2.6.16 kernel) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:16:20 +0200 Message-ID: <442A5064.306@trash.net> References: <442A4DBA.1070206@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Grzegorz Janoszka In-Reply-To: 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 Grzegorz Janoszka wrote: > On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >>> Attached is patch to patch-o-matic-ng-20060319 but it should apply >>> clearly to any of current development snapshots. All the changes are to >>> fulfill kernel 2.6.16 and xtables requirements. >>> Please include it. >> >> Why do you want to port it to x_tables? So far your port still only >> works with IPv4. Are you planning to add IPv6 support? > > > First - I thougt all netfilter targets must go to x_tables. I saw config > of 2.6.16 and there is no such thing like iptables there. No, x_tables is meant to avoid code duplication between IPv4 and IPv6. Pure IPv4/IPv6 matches/targets should stay where they are. BTW, there still is an iptables config option. > Second - yes, I plan ipv6 when it will be commonly used. That would be that point at which it should be converted to x_tables.