| To: | Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RFC: promote netfilter MARK value from IPv6 packets to sit packets |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:30:11 -0500 (EST) |
| Cc: | Erik Hensema <erik@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Netfilter Development Mailinglist <netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20030224144116.GN24960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20030217145727.GA3413@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20030223193339.GD15385@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030223234225.GA23556@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20030224083946.H34066@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030224144116.GN24960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Harald Welte wrote: > 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? > cb is a maybe - it could be useful i think since the inner and outer headers may be closely related and so share the same state. I gacve tcindex as an example; others are: priority and some of the other netfilter stuff (is nfcache still used?) etc. cheers, jamal |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Re: (no subject), ilya |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | USAGI Kernel for MIPS based device, Santosh |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RFC: promote netfilter MARK value from IPv6 packets to sit packets, Harald Welte |
| Next by Thread: | socket lock question, Eric Lemoine |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |