From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] updates for ctnetlink and conntrack core Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 07:13:56 +0200 Message-ID: <44ADED94.3010703@trash.net> References: <44ADC2EE.905@netfilter.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Harald Welte , Netfilter Development Mailinglist Return-path: To: Pablo Neira Ayuso In-Reply-To: <44ADC2EE.905@netfilter.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 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > Hi, > > Here follows a set of patches for ctnetlink and the conntrack core API. I'm perfectly fine with 1, 2, and 9. Still need to look at 10 in more detail, 3 - 5 need a bit more work. As for 6 - 8, see below. > Basically, at the time that I was working on the ctnetlink patches, I > tried to keep in mind the idea of reducing the netlink bandwidth > consumption following the principle of just dumping meaningful fields > depending on the type of event. > > Please let me know what you think. Thanks! I think this is something we need to agree on in principle. I'm not convinced that we really do save much bandwidth in the common case, and that its worth diverging from the usual update notifications containing full updates sent by the remaining network stack (besides unset fields or fields containing 0). I'll see if I can get some numbers of the actual differences without too much effort.