From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] iptables: accept multiple IP address specifications for -s, -d Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:19:59 +0200 Message-ID: <4A2FA4EF.6080402@trash.net> References: <1244229955-27642-1-git-send-email-jengelh@medozas.de> <1244229955-27642-2-git-send-email-jengelh@medozas.de> <4A2A1260.7050207@netfilter.org> <4A2D171E.9060401@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:57059 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753275AbZFJMUA (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:20:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Monday 2009-06-08 15:50, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>>> From: Michael Granzow >>>> >>>> libiptc already supports adding and deleting multiple rules with >>>> different addresses, so it only needs to be wired up to the options. >>>> >>>> # ip6tables -I INPUT -s 2001:db8::d,2001:db8::e -j DROP >> No objections besides that its too large for this late in the cycle. >> > Git is not as castrated as Hg when it comes to branches, so why not > make a "stable" branch that is then regularly merged into master? :) I don't see why that would currently be necessary. We're talking about a few days, and in fact I'd rather have people test the current code before the release instead of hacking on new things :)