Hi Neil, Thanks for the initial pointers. Agree on your feeling of very sparse documentation. Do you have a text box with IPv6 traffic passing by that i can log on remotely? It would help to get a bit the grasp of how much work this actually is and how to keep both ULOG and NFLOG interfaces up and running. Makes sense to follow-up privately if you (or anybody else reading) have the testbed available and summarize here at a later stage when things become more clear.
Cheers, Paolo On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 08:24:24AM +0100, Neil Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 17:28 +0000, Paolo Lucente wrote: > > Hi Neil, > > > > If such an issue exists, it's certainly not a problem fixing it. But > > since i'm not the greatest expert of the ULOG API i would need you to > > be somewhat more verbose with your comment. Suggestions are certainly > > appreciated; perhaps you can offer access to a testbed or contribute > > code yourself? > > > > Cheers, > > Paolo > > > > Sorry. Final thing on a Friday is probably not the best time to be > posting your first message on a board. > > Since the answer wasn't "Oh yes you just do this to support NFLOG" I > guess that means I get to write the code to make it work. I hope you > don't mind giving me a few pointers into your code. > > The standard ip6tables interface doesn't have a ULOG target only an > NFLOG target and its clear from what little netfilter documentation > there is that NFLOG is the interface of preference for the future. At > least until they change their mind again. > > The documentation is particularly sparse and I've only done a > preliminary search through the libraries. However I'm hoping that it > shouldn't be too difficult to switch the formats across. > > The user level interface to the NFLOG structure appears to be a library > called 'libnetfilter_log' documented here: > > http://www.netfilter.org/projects/libnetfilter_log/doxygen/ > > with a test program here: > > http://www.netfilter.org/projects/libnetfilter_log/doxygen/nfulnl__test_8c_source.html > > which appears to use a callback structure to handle the incoming > packets. > > Do you think including this would be the best way in, or should I stick > with the lower level netlink interface as used for ULOG? > > Rgs > > Neil > _______________________________________________ pmacct-discussion mailing list http://www.pmacct.net/#mailinglists
