From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [tproxy] Re: Request: including tproxy patch to official iptables/kernel. Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:53:29 +0200 Message-ID: <45379169.4030504@trash.net> References: <20061016114331.AF36.TSUNEO.YOSHIOKA@f-secure.com> <45331D32.5070209@trash.net> <200610171638.25425@nienna> <20061017150147.GD1598@xi.wantstofly.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Yoshioka Tsuneo , netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, tproxy@lists.balabit.hu, KOVACS Krisztian Return-path: To: Lennert Buytenhek In-Reply-To: <20061017150147.GD1598@xi.wantstofly.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 Lennert Buytenhek wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 04:38:24PM +0200, KOVACS Krisztian wrote: > > >> Moreover, I think there's no general consensus between networking >>maintainers whether or not the features tproxy provides are worth the >>hassles. Transparent proxying features have been removed during the 2.3 >>development as there seemed little interest in those. Of course there are >>a handful of companies interested in having the feature in mainline, but >>let's face the facts: the majority of users do not care about tproxy. > > > There's other features and drivers in Linux where a similar thing > applies. If tproxy doesn't get into the way when it's not used or > turned off, why shouldn't it be merged? Thats exactly what I was going to say :)