Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+2\.6\]\s+iptables\s+CONNMARK\s+match\+target\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+2\.6\]\s+iptables\s+CONNMARK\s+match\+target\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH 2.6] iptables CONNMARK match+target (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:21:02 +0200; Hi Dave! Since 2.6.9 is out, I'll be pushing new feature patches again. This is the first patch, adding something similar like nfmark, but on a per-conntrack (as opposed to per-skb) level. Very usefu; /archives/netdev/2004-10/msg00792.html (9,903 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CONNMARK match+target (score: 1): Author: " <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:30:40 -0700; Applied, thanks a lot Harald.; /archives/netdev/2004-10/msg00820.html (8,063 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CONNMARK match+target (score: 1): Author: " <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:12:48 +0200 (CEST); On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Harald Welte wrote: This is the first patch, adding something similar like nfmark, but on a per-conntrack (as opposed to per-skb) level. Very useful especially for asymmatric rou; /archives/netdev/2004-10/msg00836.html (8,801 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CONNMARK match+target (score: 1): Author: k <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:16:32 +0200; What is 'this' you are referring to? 'patch'? Well you should know your patch ;) 'very useful'? Yes, indeed. I think it is already very useful, even without MARK bit-wise operations (which AFAIK are; /archives/netdev/2004-10/msg00843.html (10,482 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CONNMARK match+target (score: 1): Author: ONN.HAMILTON@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:25:35 +0200 (CEST); On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Harald Welte wrote: Is this with or without the mark operations? What is 'this' you are referring to? The CONNMARK patch. 'very useful'? Yes, indeed. I think it is already very u; /archives/netdev/2004-10/msg00847.html (9,972 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CONNMARK match+target (score: 1): Author: homas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:08:37 +0200; Yes, but doesn't the patch I just submitted to DaveM include all the required functionality? both ipt_connmark and ipt_CONNMARK have a 'mask' parameter in ther {match,targ}info struct. If you think t; /archives/netdev/2004-10/msg00877.html (10,470 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CONNMARK match+target (score: 1): Author: te <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:19:12 +0200 (CEST); On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Harald Welte wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 12:25:35PM +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: The MARK bit-wise operations is also available for CONNMARK and could in theory be included; /archives/netdev/2004-10/msg00878.html (10,351 bytes)
8. [PATCH 2.6] iptables CONNMARK match+target (score: 1): Author: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:21:02 +0200; Hi Dave! Since 2.6.9 is out, I'll be pushing new feature patches again. This is the first patch, adding something similar like nfmark, but on a per-conntrack (as opposed to per-skb) level. Very usefu; /archives/netdev/2004-10/msg02290.html (9,918 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CONNMARK match+target (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:30:40 -0700; Applied, thanks a lot Harald.; /archives/netdev/2004-10/msg02318.html (8,123 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CONNMARK match+target (score: 1): Author: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:12:48 +0200 (CEST); This is the first patch, adding something similar like nfmark, but on a per-conntrack (as opposed to per-skb) level. Very useful especially for asymmatric routing in combination with MASQUERADE, as; /archives/netdev/2004-10/msg02334.html (8,820 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CONNMARK match+target (score: 1): Author: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:16:32 +0200; What is 'this' you are referring to? 'patch'? Well you should know your patch ;) 'very useful'? Yes, indeed. I think it is already very useful, even without MARK bit-wise operations (which AFAIK are; /archives/netdev/2004-10/msg02341.html (10,609 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CONNMARK match+target (score: 1): Author: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:25:35 +0200 (CEST); Is this with or without the mark operations? What is 'this' you are referring to? The CONNMARK patch. 'very useful'? Yes, indeed. I think it is already very useful, even without MARK bit-wise operat; /archives/netdev/2004-10/msg02345.html (10,169 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CONNMARK match+target (score: 1): Author: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:08:37 +0200; Yes, but doesn't the patch I just submitted to DaveM include all the required functionality? both ipt_connmark and ipt_CONNMARK have a 'mask' parameter in ther {match,targ}info struct. If you think t; /archives/netdev/2004-10/msg02375.html (10,667 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CONNMARK match+target (score: 1): Author: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:19:12 +0200 (CEST); The MARK bit-wise operations is also available for CONNMARK and could in theory be included in CONNMARK when submitted to the kernel Yes, but doesn't the patch I just submitted to DaveM include all; /archives/netdev/2004-10/msg02376.html (10,674 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]