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 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.
Sounds fair. All we need now is for someone to kindly submit these rather
straight forward patches.
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]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]