Re: arptables and the generic xtables issues

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Wednesday 2008-10-15 21:43, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>> Currently, we have tagged quite a lot of targets and matches with
>> AF_UNSPEC as they are generic for the netfilter supported protocols.
>> This is fine if we only think of ebtables, iptables and ip6tables but
>> not for arptables, I doubt that all those target and matches can work
>> with arptables - even if we still need the userspace support, of course.
>>
>> I think that we should fix those, right?
> 
> That would be a tremendous amount of work, given that arptables (and
> ebtables too) is not quite the same codebase as iptables anymore.
> Most of the iptables development just went by arp and ebtables due
> to the nature of all these semiforks.
> 
> I think we should rather focus on a truly family-independent table
> in the very near future. In fact I have ideas floating around that,
> but am stuck with how I'd exactly funnel it into reviewable patch
> chunks.

I think we should finish the unification/resyncing efforts before
adding new features in this area. There's still *a lot* of old
cruft that could probably be removed.