Re: Request: including tproxy patch to official iptables/kernel.

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

KOVACS Krisztian wrote:
>   Yes, there was significant progress since then, we're testing the 
> patches at the moment. There still are a couple of problems with the new 
> approach, but it certainly looks promising. I'll post the patches on 
> netfilter-devel for review and comments as soon as things have settled 
> down a bit.

Great.

>   Instead of trying to get the 2.0 branch of tproxy merged into mainline 
> we're concentrating our efforts on getting the new code working. As the 
> maintainer of the current tproxy patchset, I do not consider it clean and 
> safe enough to have it merged upstream.

Yes, the old patches are a bit risky I think. But the new approach
(in case its still the same) looked like a nice way.

>   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. 
> That's why I don't even try to get it merged.

I have no problem with that if it doesn't affect users not using it.