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 17:34:25 +0200 Message-ID: <46AE0501.3080107@trash.net> References: <2cb453e80707300742i66b81b95pde18e37a6db046d5@mail.gmail.com> <46ADF9FA.4000901@trash.net> <46ADFACE.5040304@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jan Engelhardt , Ludovic , netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org To: Krzysztof Oledzki 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 Krzysztof Oledzki wrote: > 1. ROUTE has a very usefull option --tee. AFAIK it is not possible to do > it other way. Thats true. Not sure in what practical situation it is used though. > 2. Policy routing based on fwmark is not always an option if you use > marks for other purposes. Maybe (trying to avoid getting into discussion about too small mark values again :)). > So, if it is going to be removed from pom-ng I would like to keep it in > my external pomng-repository. Please go ahead. Just FYI: One more reason for removing it is that its broken wrt. IPsec handling and the duplicated functions from ip_output are out of sync (and I think there were a few smaller problems as well). If there really is a need for something like the tee functionality I'm not opposed to considering merging a clean patch without these problems for that.