Re: [PATCHv4 0/2] Find address type on the packet's interface

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Nov 19 2007 17:06, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> I just read up on your and Jan's discussion, but you were too fast
>> for me :) I'm not sure whether this is really a good candidate
>> for x_tables. IPv4 and IPv6 addrtype have different meanings, the
>> IPv4 addrtype is based on routing, IPv6 solely on the address.
>> Especially things like "--addrtype local" won't work, which is
>> IMO the most useful feature. And since you don't actually add IPv6
>> support, I don't see any advantage in moving to x_tables. So I
>> think for now I'd prefer a change to the ipt_addrtype match.
> 
> IMHO it does not make any difference whether it is xt_*.c or ipt_*.c,
> the cost is quite the same.
> I am all for xt_*.c, because that's the "new shiny" thing.

x_tables is meant for unified matches and targets, as long as theres
nothing to unify, there's no point in moving it over. So far I think
we only have a single xtables match that doesn't support both IPv4
and IPv6 (xt_conntrack), and I'd like to keep it that way.