| To: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ??? |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 7 Jun 2000 07:18:45 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxx>, Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20000607010120.A4334@fred.muc.de> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 09:21:39PM +0200, Lennert Buytenhek wrote: > > Netfilter is not an IP only thing. It is a generic framework for > packet mangling. Although currently only IPv4 > and IPv6 netfilter implementations exist it would be no big problem > to add ``raw ethernet'' netfilter hooks. > Andi, Isnt packet type sufficient for this today? or are you talking about hooks based in addition to things like src/dst MACs? In regards to netlink and devices and the route daemons: I agree that netlink would be the best for daemons to use for anything that is routable. [compare to some daemons (MERIT?) which used to/maybe still are polling /proc ;->]. But does it have to be a _device_ to use netlink? i think not. cheers, jamal |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Slow TCP connection between linux and wince, Aki M Laukkanen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Mitchell Blank Jr |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Mitchell Blank Jr |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |