[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IPv4] Kill remnant of ip_nat_dumb
From: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:29:55 +0200
Cc: ak@xxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <E1CAOil-0005Ot-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20040923061923.GL3236@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E1CAOil-0005Ot-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040818i
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 06:12:55PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> Well the problem is nobody is stepping forward to fix it.  It was removed
> not because it was redundant, but because it was broken.
> Until someone actually fixes it, it can't go back in.

I fully understand this, and I support that decision.  

Independent of this, I just wanted to note that if there was working
and compatible code, it had it's use for high performance static nat

> Cheers,

- 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>