Re: [PATCHv4 0/2] Find address type on the packet's interface

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Nov 19 2007 18:12, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Sorry, can't grant you that wish - I have plans to add IPv6 to xt_conntrack to
> obsolete ip6t_state, though maybe that takes a bit of time ;-)


The wish was not to add more pure IPv4 modules, I'm perfectly happy
to finally add IPv6 support to xt_conntrack :)