From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: Targets with "mangle" table limiting (Was: Re: Troubles with MARK target in 2.6.28) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:19:45 +0100 Message-ID: <49704321.8050307@trash.net> References: <86617ABF8F494F2A940C18251E3DC8D0@Hakkenden> <496AE0E3.1030009@trash.net> <496AEC64.5040202@trash.net> <496AEEB0.3080905@trash.net> <38bcb3ec0901150408h39390a74s6fcc9f722094715d@mail.gmail.com> <496F3E5A.9050607@trash.net> <49703860.1020805@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James King , Netfilter Development Mailinglist To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:61382 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755928AbZAPITr (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2009 03:19:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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.