From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [question] ipt_CLUSTERIP and address length Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:18:07 +0100 Message-ID: <4B866A7F.7070205@netfilter.org> References: <20100225101257.GC2667@psychotron.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com> <4B864F9A.90207@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jiri Pirko , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org, netfilter@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:47484 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932234Ab0BYMSh (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:18:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B864F9A.90207@trash.net> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Patrick McHardy wrote: > Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Hi all. >> >> I want to ask if there is any particular reason for ipt_CLUSTERIP to support >> only address length of 6 (ETH_ALEN)? It seems to me reasonable for this to work >> even with another types of network hw with different addr_len. > > None that I'm aware of, but the length is also used in the ABI, > so you presently can't supply larger addresses. Not directly related to this but I wanted to discuss this time ago. Now that we have xt_CLUSTER I think that we can deprecate ipt_CLUSTERIP. With regards to this issue, it seems arptables only support EUI-48 (6 bytes) for ethernet addresses, so xt_CLUSTER would inherit the same problem but the point would be to fix arptables (not sure if possible now without breaking ABI or adding some versioning like iptables).