Al Boldi wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 06:40:02 +0300, Al Boldi said:
Sure, the idea was to mark the filter table obsolete as to make people
start using the mangle table to do their filtering for new setups. The
filter table would then still be available for legacy/specia
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:31:58 +0300, Al Boldi said:
> > Well, for example to stop any transient packets being forwarded. You could
> > probably hack around this using mark's, but you can't stop the implied
> > route lookup, unless you stop it in prerouting.
>
> Basically, you have one big uninten
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 06:40:02 +0300, Al Boldi said:
> > Sure, the idea was to mark the filter table obsolete as to make people
> > start using the mangle table to do their filtering for new setups. The
> > filter table would then still be available for legacy/special setu
On Oct 20 2007 00:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Sure, the idea was to mark the filter table obsolete as to make people start
>> using the mangle table to do their filtering for new setups. The filter
>> table would then still be available for legacy/special setups. But this
>> would only be
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 06:40:02 +0300, Al Boldi said:
> Sure, the idea was to mark the filter table obsolete as to make people start
> using the mangle table to do their filtering for new setups. The filter
> table would then still be available for legacy/special setups. But this
> would only be
Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
> If not, then shouldn't the filter table be obsoleted to avoid
> confusion?
> >>>
> >>> That would probably confuse people. Just don't use it if you don't
> >>> need to.
> >
> > That is a most practical suggestion.
> >
> >> The problem is that
Bill Davidsen wrote:
If not, then shouldn't the filter table be obsoleted to avoid
confusion?
That would probably confuse people. Just don't use it if you don't
need to.
That is a most practical suggestion.
The problem is that people think they are safe with the filter table,
when in fact
Al Boldi wrote:
Patrick McHardy wrote:
Please send mails discussing netfilter to netfilter-devel.
Ok. I just found out this changed to vger. But
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is bouncing me.
Al Boldi wrote:
With the existence of the mangle table, how useful is the filter table?
Other than requirin
Al Boldi wrote:
Patrick McHardy wrote:
The netlink based iptables successor I'm currently working on allows to
dynamically create tables with user-specified priorities and "built-in"
chains. The only built-in tables will be those that need extra
processing (mangle/nat). So it should be possib
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > On Oct 12 2007 16:30, Al Boldi wrote:
> With the existence of the mangle table, how useful is the filter
> table?
> >>>
> >>>A similar discussion was back in March 2007.
> >>>http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=117394977210823&w=2
> >>>h
On Oct 12 2007 15:48, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>The netlink based iptables successor I'm currently working on allows to
>dynamically create tables with user-specified priorities and "built-in"
>chains. The only built-in tables will be those that need extra
>processing (mangle/nat). So it should be
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Oct 12 2007 15:48, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>The netlink based iptables successor I'm currently working on allows to
>>dynamically create tables with user-specified priorities and "built-in"
>>chains. The only built-in tables will be those that need extra
>>processing (
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Oct 12 2007 16:30, Al Boldi wrote:
With the existence of the mangle table, how useful is the filter table?
>>>
>>>A similar discussion was back in March 2007.
>>>http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=117394977210823&w=2
>>>http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=11
On Oct 12 2007 16:30, Al Boldi wrote:
>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Oct 12 2007 00:31, Al Boldi wrote:
>> >With the existence of the mangle table, how useful is the filter table?
>>
>> A similar discussion was back in March 2007.
>> http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=117394977210823&w=2
>> http:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Oct 12 2007 00:31, Al Boldi wrote:
> >With the existence of the mangle table, how useful is the filter table?
>
> A similar discussion was back in March 2007.
> http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=117394977210823&w=2
> http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=1174000639077
On Oct 12 2007 00:31, Al Boldi wrote:
>
>With the existence of the mangle table, how useful is the filter table?
A similar discussion was back in March 2007.
http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=117394977210823&w=2
http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=117400063907706&w=2
in the end, my proposa
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Please send mails discussing netfilter to netfilter-devel.
Ok. I just found out this changed to vger. But
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is bouncing me.
> Al Boldi wrote:
> > With the existence of the mangle table, how useful is the filter table?
> >
> > Other than requiring the RE
With the existence of the mangle table, how useful is the filter table?
Other than requiring the REJECT target to be ported to the mangle table, is
the filter table faster than the mangle table?
If not, then shouldn't the filter table be obsoleted to avoid confusion?
Thanks!
--
Al
-
To unsubs
Please send mails discussing netfilter to netfilter-devel.
Al Boldi wrote:
> With the existence of the mangle table, how useful is the filter table?
>
> Other than requiring the REJECT target to be ported to the mangle table, is
> the filter table faster than the mangle table?
There are some mi
19 matches
Mail list logo
