netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC: promote netfilter MARK value from IPv6 packets to sit packets

To: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RFC: promote netfilter MARK value from IPv6 packets to sit packets
From: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:41:16 +0100
Cc: Erik Hensema <erik@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Netfilter Development Mailinglist <netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20030224083946.H34066@shell.cyberus.ca>
Mail-followup-to: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Erik Hensema <erik@xxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Netfilter Development Mailinglist <netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20030217145727.GA3413@hensema.net> <20030223193339.GD15385@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <20030223234225.GA23556@hensema.net> <20030224083946.H34066@shell.cyberus.ca>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 08:41:10AM -0500, jamal wrote:
> If this is to be a config option, it should not be restricted to
> netfilter specifics but rather skb specifics. Example the tcindex
> (maybe even the cb) etc.

No problem with me.  I do understand the usefulness of tcindex, but what
would a totally different protcol (or the user) do with the cb of a
different protocol?

> cheers,
> jamal

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>             http://www.netfilter.org/
============================================================================
  "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
   architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
   on while IP was being designed."                    -- Paul Vixie

Attachment: pgpCbS67mmjQv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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