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
- Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx> http://www.gnumonks.org/
Programming is like sex: One mistake and you have to support it your lifetime
Description: Digital signature