Re: [PATCH] bridge: make bridge-nf-call-*tables default configurable
From: Patrick McHardy <hidden>
Date: 2009-07-01 09:01:09
Also in:
netfilter-devel
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2009-07-01 · Re: [PATCH] bridge: make bridge-nf-call-*tables default configurable · Mark Smith <hidden>
- 2009-07-01 · Re: [PATCH] bridge: make bridge-nf-call-*tables default configurable · Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
- 2009-07-01 · Re: [PATCH] bridge: make bridge-nf-call-*tables default configurable · David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
- 2009-07-01 · Re: [PATCH] bridge: make bridge-nf-call-*tables default configurable · Patrick McHardy <hidden>
- 2009-07-01 · Re: [PATCH] bridge: make bridge-nf-call-*tables default configurable · David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:16:35PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:quoted
It makes sense absolutely. Consider: * packet enters bridge * NF_HOOK(PF_INET6, NF_INET_PRE_ROUTING, ...) is called by nr_netfilter.c * (connection tracking entry is set up) * let bridging decision be "local delivery"No, my question is does it ever make sense to use conntrack as part of bridge netfilter. That is, do you ever want to test it in your rules that are run as part of bridge netfilter.
Probably not, but thats not how its used currently. The packets are passed to IP netfilter, which performs connection tracking. I'm not sure how we could avoid the negative effects while still allowing this.