From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [patch] netfilter: implement TCPMSS target for IPv6 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:14 +0100 Message-ID: <45ACD456.6010200@trash.net> References: <20070114192011.GA6270@clipper.ens.fr> <45ABCB29.7080600@trash.net> <87ac0jl1az.fsf@boz.loft.chdir.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Arnaud Ebalard In-Reply-To: <87ac0jl1az.fsf@boz.loft.chdir.org> 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 Arnaud Ebalard wrote: > Sorry for the late post. Just to say that i also _had_ to implement > that (2.6.19.1 and iptables 1.3.7). I was testing it before pushing > it ;-) too late. Anyway, patch is below for reference. Thanks, I've applied the ip6tables TCPMSS extension to SVN. > Question : I made a specific case for AH (even if deprecated) protected > traffic to avoid clamping of that packets. ipv6_skip_exthdr() simply > does not verify that and it seems there is no check against that. Can > you take a look at find_tcp_hdr in the patch below and tell me if i'm > wrong ? (function is based on ipv6_find_hdr(), ipv6_prepare(), > nf_ct_ipv6_skip_exthdr() and ipv6_skip_exthdr() code). Mhh .. that makes sense, but I tend to prefer to let users take care of that using their ruleset.