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 FORWARD with a little extra overhead.
>>If you really have to save resources, you should use PREROUTING/raw
>>to also avoid the creation of a connection tracking entry.
>
>
> Yes sure, if you use nat.
Conntrack.
> 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 things as easily configurable as possible, and as things
> stand right now, the filter-table is completely useless for 99% of
> use-cases.
Sure, as I said, patches to remove the arbitary restrictions to
tables are welcome, but please do this for all targets and
matches which allow this, not only REJECT. And if you include a
seperate (tested) patch for the IPv4 and IPv6 REJECT targets
I'll consider it as well.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
