From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: RFC: promote netfilter MARK value from IPv6 packets to sit packets Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:30:11 -0500 (EST) Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20030224212312.Y44654@shell.cyberus.ca> References: <20030217145727.GA3413@hensema.net> <20030223193339.GD15385@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <20030223234225.GA23556@hensema.net> <20030224083946.H34066@shell.cyberus.ca> <20030224144116.GN24960@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Erik Hensema , "" , Netfilter Development Mailinglist Return-path: To: Harald Welte In-Reply-To: <20030224144116.GN24960@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Harald Welte wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 08:41:10AM -0500, jamal wrote: > > If this is to be a config option, it should not be restricted to > > netfilter specifics but rather skb specifics. Example the tcindex > > (maybe even the cb) etc. > > No problem with me. I do understand the usefulness of tcindex, but what > would a totally different protcol (or the user) do with the cb of a > different protocol? > cb is a maybe - it could be useful i think since the inner and outer headers may be closely related and so share the same state. I gacve tcindex as an example; others are: priority and some of the other netfilter stuff (is nfcache still used?) etc. cheers, jamal