From: "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:36:31 -0800 (PST)
> From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:35:53 +1100
>
> > How about merging the patches that everybody has agreed on first?
> >
> > So far, I haven't see any objections to patches 1
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 07:36:31PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> View the net-2.6.16 GIT tree as a sort of playpen, much like
> -mm, until we get close to the real 2.6.16 upstream development
> openning up.
>
> I rebase all the time, and I can pluck out and change patches
> at will.
Sure, I
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:35:53 +1100
> How about merging the patches that everybody has agreed on first?
>
> So far, I haven't see any objections to patches 1 and 2 so they
> can go in straight away. They don't even touch IPv6.
>
> Patches 3-6 could become
From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 02:17:14 +0100
> I would appreciate that, but I want to have a look closer look
> at Herbert's patches first. Unfortunately its late and I have
> to get up early, so its going to take me a day.
Take your time :)
-
To unsubscribe fro
Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would appreciate that, but I want to have a look closer look
> at Herbert's patches first. Unfortunately its late and I have
> to get up early, so its going to take me a day.
How about merging the patches that everybody has agreed on first?
So far
David S. Miller wrote:
From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:31:28 +0100
This is the latest netfilter/IPsec patchset. Its purpose is to make
IPsec look as much as a normal tunnel device to netfilter as possible
and to enable NAT support.
I think there are some
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:34:38 -0800 (PST)),
"David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> I want to do this so that Patrick doesn't have to repost
> 13 or so patches every time one of the parts still under
> discussion gets changed.
>
> Actually, it seems the only
From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:31:28 +0100
> This is the latest netfilter/IPsec patchset. Its purpose is to make
> IPsec look as much as a normal tunnel device to netfilter as possible
> and to enable NAT support.
I think there are some of these patches that w
Am Sonntag, 20. November 2005 19:07 schrieb Patrick McHardy:
Hi!
> You're right, that's the reason. Since the patches touch quite a lot of
> code they won't make it in 2.6.15, though.
Hmm, I can wait for 2.6.16. But I tried to figure out what's going wrong a
couple of days. Now I know I'll just
Joerg Platte wrote:
Am Sonntag, 20. November 2005 17:31 schrieb Patrick McHardy:
Hi!
- policy lookups after NAT:
When NAT changes a packet it already calls ip_route_me_harder, which
reroutes the packet and does a new policy lookup. It only looks at
the IP addresses however, changing the port n
Am Sonntag, 20. November 2005 17:31 schrieb Patrick McHardy:
Hi!
> - policy lookups after NAT:
>
> When NAT changes a packet it already calls ip_route_me_harder, which
> reroutes the packet and does a new policy lookup. It only looks at
> the IP addresses however, changing the port numbers require
11 matches
Mail list logo
