| To: | Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: netfilter6: ICMPv6 type 143 doesn't match |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 5 May 2005 15:31:18 -0700 |
| Cc: | dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx, laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pb@xxxxxxxxxxxx, usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, yasuyuki.kozakai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <427A9EFF.5030907@trash.net> |
| References: | <OF647D617E.F01230B8-ON88256FF8.007AF1C9-88256FF8.007B457C@us.ibm.com> <427A9EFF.5030907@trash.net> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 06 May 2005 00:32:31 +0200 Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > David Stevens wrote: > > I'll look at it in more detail and let you know if I see any problems, > > Thanks. Is there a reason why these packets never hit the POST_ROUTING > hook? I think it is an oversight rather than intentional. The NDISC lookup stuff wrt. routing went back and forth implementation wise. We used to use a seperate routing table for NDISC entries, but that caused all kinds of problems wrt. IPSEC (which the seperate routing table was ironically meant to fix) so that got undone and now NDISC routes and normal routes exist in one table. So I think this oversight is just fallout from all of those changes. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: CONFIG_NETFILTER_DEBUG spew, Patrick McHardy |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: netfilter6: ICMPv6 type 143 doesn't match, Patrick McHardy |
| Next by Thread: | Re: netfilter6: ICMPv6 type 143 doesn't match, Patrick McHardy |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |