From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipt_ROUTE for kernel 2.6.21.5 Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:47:22 +0200 Message-ID: <46ADF9FA.4000901@trash.net> References: <2cb453e80707300742i66b81b95pde18e37a6db046d5@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Ludovic , netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: In-Reply-To: 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 Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Jul 30 2007 16:42, Ludovic wrote: >=20 >>sorry if there is already some patches about this but i've searched >>one week how to make the ROUTE target work well. >> >>Here are two patches (one for ipv4 and one for ipv6) which change >>ipt_register and ipt_unregister to xt_register and xt_unregister and >>which add .family =3D AF_INET in the xt_target structure declaration. >=20 >=20 > Somehow this feels like d=E9j=E0-vu. ipt_ROUTE is, well, a hack > and the proper solution to it is policy routing; e.g. based on fwmark. Fully agreed (well, I made that argument for ages), I think we should simply remove it from pomng to avoid misleading users into thinking it would be the proper way to do things.