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 14:03:13 +0100 Message-ID: <4B867511.7050204@netfilter.org> References: <20100225101257.GC2667@psychotron.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com> <4B864F9A.90207@trash.net> <4B866A7F.7070205@netfilter.org> <20100225125631.GF2667@psychotron.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jan Engelhardt , Patrick McHardy , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter@vger.kernel.org To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100225125631.GF2667@psychotron.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com> Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Jiri Pirko wrote: > Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 01:54:50PM CET, jengelh@medozas.de wrote: >> On Thursday 2010-02-25 13:18, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >>>>> 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. >> xt_CLUSTER - where in the tree would that be? > > I was trying to find it too. I guess it stands out of it (at least net-next). sorry, it's xt_cluster, no capitalization. pablo@decadence:~/devel/scm/git/nf-2.6$ ls net/netfilter/xt_cluster.c It's there since quite some time.