Re: Targets with "mangle" table limiting (Was: Re: Troubles with MARK target in 2.6.28)

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Friday 2009-01-16 08:33, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>> On Thursday 2009-01-15 14:47, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>>>>> Namely that MARK.2 is available for all tables. It looks like an error,
>>>>>> given that the previous ones were all limited to the mangle table.
>>>>>> But, I would have to ask - what do we gain from limiting it to mangle?
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> I could imagine it having to do with routing (nfmark can be used as
>>>>>> a routing key, as can TOS/DSCP):
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> What do others think?
>>>> Agreed, it doesn't make sense to restrict it to mangle only.
>>>>
>>> Are there perhaps other targets besides MARK whose table restriction
>>> should be relaxed?
>> I can think of CONNMARK, CLASSIFY, TCPOPTSTRIP for consistency with
>> TCPMSS and possibly CONNSECMARK (after consulting with James Morris).
>>
> connmark is already relaxed, as is connsecmark.
> 
> And so I wonder what purpose the mangle table has, other than being 
> before routing.

It does explicit rerouting in LOCAL_OUT. It should have been named
"route" in my opinion.