[Top] [All Lists]

Re: dummy as IMQ replacement

To: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: dummy as IMQ replacement
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 31 Jan 2005 09:29:10 -0500
Cc: Hasso Tepper <hasso@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Nguyen Dinh Nam <nguyendinhnam@xxxxxxxxx>, Remus <rmocius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andre Tomt <andre@xxxxxxxx>,, Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Damion de Soto <damion@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <1107123123.8021.80.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <1107175673.7847.130.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <> <1107179140.7840.157.camel@jzny.localdomain> <>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 09:06, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > Yeah, that would fix it. Note however, that i am trying to highly
> > discourage use of iptables and i would rather let people who use
> > iptables to suffer;-> (sounds rude i know).  At some point i plan to
> > remove the dependency on iptables altogether.
> Heh, I think it isn't rude, giving people a little clap to join
> the "good side" isn't that bad ;->

Unfortunately killing it totaly would break all sorts of scripts.
Wish we could do this though ;->
Go ahead and push the patch to Dave even - I am just gonna look the
other way;->

> > So i am not sure whether i should encourage pushing of this patch or not ;->
> I don't care that much, the patch is there, everyone can patch and
> distributions can pick it up. I agree that we should remove the
> dependency on iptables but I'd also like to see the dependency on the
> action bits to go away at the same time.

The main reason not to use the iptables bits is performance; also its
just the wrong spot in the stack.


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