On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Harald Welte wrote:
> However, we are now facing the problem on how we want to proceed.
I completely agree with Harald and does not like the idea of adding
(more) duplicated code to the system. There are already too much
duplication between IPv4/IPv6 at netfilter level, which must be sorted
out.
> 1) submit ip6_conntrack to the 2.6.x kernel
> We would then need somebody committe to maintaining it, assuring
> it keeps in sync with the work done on ip_conntrack. I do not want
> to put the burden of ip_conntrack / ip6_conntrack synchronization on
> everybody who submits patches/bugfixes/...
>
> 2) keep ip6_conntrack in patch-o-matic and start work on a l3
> independent conntrack system.
> This would give more users to the code, since most advanced
> netfilter users are using patch-o-matic anyway.
Yes, let's go with the latter solution.
Best regards,
Jozsef
-
E-mail : kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics
H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary
|