From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 0/2] Find address type on the packet's interface Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:12:12 +0100 Message-ID: <4741C3EC.3050500@trash.net> References: <11954877483732-git-send-email-panther@balabit.hu> <4741B47A.40106@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Laszlo Attila Toth , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:38504 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753590AbXKSRMf (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:12:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org 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.