[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb

To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb
From: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:19:23 +0200
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040922181433.GH27432@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20040922040155.GA19302@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1095855039.1045.67.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040922110931.68b113a4.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040922181433.GH27432@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040818i
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 08:14:33PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > It's gone until someone fixes it up into working condition
> > once more.  It's been broken ever since the first bits
> > of IPSEC dst cache infrastructure went in.
> Also netfilter has a static NAT too these days, so it doesn't 
> seem to be very useful to have another one.

yes and no. 

From a functionality point of view: yes.  

From a performance point of view, there are applications for really dumb
static NAT where you don't want to pull all the dependencies from
ip_conntrack over ip_tables.

> -Andi

- Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>     
Programming is like sex: One mistake and you have to support it your lifetime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>