On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 06:23:20AM +0000, Bart De Schuymer wrote: > Op do, 23-06-2005 te 07:49 +1000, schreef Herbert Xu: > > Longer term though we should obsolete the ipt_physdev module. The > > rationale there is that this creates a precedence that we can't > > possibly maintain in a consistent way. For example, we don't have > > a target that matches by hardware MAC address. If you wanted to > > do that, you'd hook into the arptables interface rather than deferring > > iptables after the creation of the hardware header. > > Iptables also sees purely bridged packets and at least for these packets > the physdev module is useful and harmless. I think removing physdev > alltogether is a bit drastic. > > I wonder what flood of messages from angry users the removal of the > physdev functionality for routed packets will stirr. I have to agree with Bart. I don't know any bridging-packetfilter setup that doesn't use ipt_physdev in FORWARD :( -- - Harald Welte <[email protected]> http://netfilter.org/ ============================================================================ "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
- From: Patrick McHardy <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
- References:
- Re: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
- From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
- From: Patrick McHardy <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
- From: Bart De Schuymer <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
- From: Patrick McHardy <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
- From: Bart De Schuymer <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
- From: Patrick McHardy <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
- From: Bart De Schuymer <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
- From: Patrick McHardy <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
- From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
- From: Bart De Schuymer <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC] SPI core -- revisited
- Next by Date: Re: ACPI-based PCI resources: PCMCIA bugfix, but resources missing in trees
- Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
- Next by thread: Re: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
- Index(es):