Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:04:43PM +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 05:42:58PM +0900, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:52:32 +0100
Luigi Rizzo said:
While we are at it, might I suggest one more "nice" thing...
For several of my projects
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:04:43PM +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 05:42:58PM +0900, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:52:32 +0100
> > > Luigi Rizzo said:
> >
> > rizzo> We only need one 'me' option that matches v4 and v6, because the
> >
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 05:42:58PM +0900, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:52:32 +0100
> > Luigi Rizzo said:
>
> rizzo> We only need one 'me' option that matches v4 and v6, because the
> rizzo> other two can be implemented as 'ip4 me' and 'ip6 me' at no extra
> ri
Hi,
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:52:32 +0100
> Luigi Rizzo said:
rizzo> We only need one 'me' option that matches v4 and v6, because the
rizzo> other two can be implemented as 'ip4 me' and 'ip6 me' at no extra
rizzo> cost (the code for 'me' only scans the list corresponding to the
rizzo> act
>
> We only need one 'me' option that matches v4 and v6, because the
> other two can be implemented as 'ip4 me' and 'ip6 me' at no extra
> cost (the code for 'me' only scans the list corresponding to the
> actual address family of the packet). I would actually vote for
> removing the 'me6' microi
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 03:27:13AM +0900, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 20:36:45 -0500
> > David Horn said:
>
> > dhorn2000> Yes, "me" matching either ipv4/ipv6 would certainly simplify the
> > default
> > dhorn2000> rc.firewall flow.
> >
> > Here is my proposed p
Hi,
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 20:36:45 -0500
> David Horn said:
> dhorn2000> Yes, "me" matching either ipv4/ipv6 would certainly simplify the
> default
> dhorn2000> rc.firewall flow.
>
> Here is my proposed patch. With this patch, 'me' matches to both IPv4
> and IPv6, and 'me4' is added for
