From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Cc: Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org>,
Netfilter Development Mailinglist
<netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: NAT configuration over ctnetlink
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 17:39:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <445388B9.2010308@netfilter.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4451BA40.4050207@trash.net>
Hi Patrick!
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> I added ctnetlink support to a SIP proxy (siproxd) yesterday and
> stumbled over some problems with NAT. The CTA_NAT attribute only
> allows to set up a single manip, since NAT mappings can't be
> changed for existing conntracks there is no way to add both a
> src- and a dst-manip. This patch removes the overloading of the
> status bits with netlink-relevant semantic and changes the CTA_NAT
> attribute to CTA_NAT_SRC and CTA_NAT_DST. It breaks compatiblity,
> but I don't think its worth trying to keep it for this stupid
> behaviour. Any comments?
Why not keep using the status bits logic? It doesn't break anything and
you can still add support for source and destination NAT handlings at
the same time. Is the status thing so ugly to break this?
--
The dawn of the fourth age of Linux firewalling is coming; a time of
great struggle and heroic deeds -- J.Kadlecsik got inspired by J.Morris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-04-29 15:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-04-28 6:46 RFC: NAT configuration over ctnetlink Patrick McHardy
2006-04-29 15:39 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso [this message]
2006-05-02 14:06 ` Patrick McHardy
2006-05-02 16:51 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2006-05-02 17:10 ` Patrick McHardy
2006-05-02 23:32 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2006-05-03 13:40 ` Patrick McHardy
2006-05-10 19:16 ` Harald Welte
2006-05-11 7:05 ` Patrick McHardy
2006-05-12 5:41 ` Patrick McHardy
2006-05-12 11:51 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2006-05-12 16:41 ` Patrick McHardy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=445388B9.2010308@netfilter.org \
--to=pablo@netfilter.org \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=laforge@netfilter.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.