netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CLUSTERIP target

To: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CLUSTERIP target
From: bert hubert <ahu@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:08:56 +0200
Cc: Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@xxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Netdev List <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20041021142527.GG3551@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: bert hubert <ahu@xxxxxxx>, Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@xxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Netdev List <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20041020223828.GP19899@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041021075530.GA1278@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041021091229.GA3551@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041021110513.GA21579@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041021130327.GD3551@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041021133346.GL3911@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041021142527.GG3551@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 04:25:27PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote:

> I'm not a big fan of inventing new kernel/userspace interfaces.  We
> don't have any associated device, so we don't have any ioctl()s or stuff
> like that.

Or use netlink.

> So instead of introducing a new syscall, I think /proc is just the right
> way to deal with this :)

Or even more modern, clusteripfs.

> Let me give it some testing, I'll re-submit it later today or tomorrow.

I'll test it at home to see if it does the right thing too.

> > > > And yes, I've received hate mail over this from switch engineers :-)

The hate mail originated from a large telco, I think the innovation just
offended their sensitive minds.

        Bert

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com      Open source, database driven DNS Software 
http://lartc.org           Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO

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