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
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Al Boldi wrote:
> > But can you see how forcing people into splitting
> > their rules across tables adds complexity. And without ipt_REJECT
> > patch, they can't even use REJECT in prerouting, which forces them to do
> > some strange hacks.
> >
> > IMHO, we should make thi
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 (
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 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
Al Boldi wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>Al Boldi wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>This also works fine in F
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Al Boldi wrote:
> >>>The problem is that people think they are safe with the filter table,
> >>>when in fact they need the prerouting chain to seal things. Right now
> >>>this is only possible in the mangle table.
> >>
> >>Why do they need PREROUTING?
> >
> > Well, for exa
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
Al Boldi wrote:
>>>The problem is that people think they are safe with the filter table,
>>>when in fact they need the prerouting chain to seal things. Right now
>>>this is only possible in the mangle table.
>>
>>Why do they need PREROUTING?
>
>
> Well, for example to stop any transient packets
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> 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.
>
> Seems to work, I got your mail on netfilter-devel.
Looks like it wor
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.
Seems to work, I got your mail on netfilter-devel.
>>Al Boldi wrote:
>>
>>>With the existence of t
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
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Please send mails discussing netfilter to netfilter-devel.
Correct address CCed and unrelated lists removed .. stupid
auto-completion :)
> Al Boldi wrote:
>
>>With the existence of the mangle table, how useful is the filter table?
>>
>>Other than requiring the REJECT tar
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
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 unsub
26 matches
Mail list logo
