From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [question] ipt_CLUSTERIP and address length Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:56:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20100225125631.GF2667@psychotron.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com> References: <20100225101257.GC2667@psychotron.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com> <4B864F9A.90207@trash.net> <4B866A7F.7070205@netfilter.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso , Patrick McHardy , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33170 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754884Ab0BYM4r (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:56:47 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 01:54:50PM CET, jengelh@medozas.de wrote: >On Thursday 2010-02-25 13:18, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >>>> >>>> I want to ask if there is any particular reason for ipt_CLUSTERIP to support >>>> only address length of 6 (ETH_ALEN)? It seems to me reasonable for this to work >>>> even with another types of network hw with different addr_len. >>> >>> None that I'm aware of, but the length is also used in the ABI, >>> so you presently can't supply larger addresses. >> >>Not directly related to this but I wanted to discuss this time ago. Now >>that we have xt_CLUSTER I think that we can deprecate ipt_CLUSTERIP. > >xt_CLUSTER - where in the tree would that be? I was trying to find it too. I guess it stands out of it (at least net-next).