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

[Laszlo Attila Toth <panther@balabit.hu>]

Patrick McHardy írta:
> 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.
> 
> 

I think x_tables is meant for similar functionality for IPv4 and IPv6 
with minor differences. This eliminates possible code duplications, but 
the exactly same usage from the user's view is not required.

-- 
Attila

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html