From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: Request: including tproxy patch to official iptables/kernel. Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:58:23 +0200 Message-ID: <4537928F.1060900@trash.net> References: <20061016114331.AF36.TSUNEO.YOSHIOKA@f-secure.com> <45331D32.5070209@trash.net> <200610171638.25425@nienna> 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 Return-path: To: KOVACS Krisztian In-Reply-To: <200610171638.25425@nienna> 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 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.