On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:47:45PM +0200, Harald Becker wrote: > Hi Rich! > > > Obviously something like that isn't acceptable for inclusion. > > It was probably just a hacked-up version of upstream iptables. > > Just as a question. I did not look into that very deep. > > You are talking about iptables. I thought newer kernel have a > different firewall, with a complete different language/interpreter. > Is that really intentional to look still at the old iptables? > Wouldn't it be better to implement applets of the new firewall > rules, giving also other users a push to use the new firewall > infrastructure.
I was under the impression that most users/products are still using the iptables interface, despite it having a new backend that they could use directly. It wouldn't hurt to have both, but a command-line-compatible version of iptables is probably more important from a user perspective. Rich _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox