From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: nftables and iptables nat coexistence Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:30:33 +0200 Message-ID: <20171019113033.GA3537@salvia> References: <20171018135650.GA16796@breakpoint.cc> <20171019101529.GA2224@salvia> <20171019111812.GC16796@breakpoint.cc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Florian Westphal Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:54742 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752000AbdJSLai (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Oct 2017 07:30:38 -0400 Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (unknown [192.168.2.11]) by mail.us.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7041F52300 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:30:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40C09DA38F for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:30:37 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171019111812.GC16796@breakpoint.cc> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 01:18:12PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > Registering implicit nat hook, making iptables_nat and nftables nat > at the same time impossible (reject from kernel) etc. is more > convenient as we cannot break existing setups and only prevent > configuring a non-working/broken state rather than allowing things > that do not work at the moment. Yes, let's tighten things now, we can relax them later.