From owner-cvs-all Mon May 13 3:48:27 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0218537B408; Mon, 13 May 2002 03:48:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g4DAlhHA012789; Mon, 13 May 2002 12:47:43 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/net if_ethersubr.c src/sys/netinet ip_dummynet.c ip_dummynet.h In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 13 May 2002 03:46:03 PDT." <20020513034603.A30586@iguana.icir.org> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 12:47:43 +0200 Message-ID: <12788.1021286863@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20020513034603.A30586@iguana.icir.org>, Luigi Rizzo writes: >On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 12:38:32PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >> Isn't it about time we go to multiple chains of rules ? > >To some degree, yes. >And the option i am mentioning seems to me the easiest way to get >to this without breaking backward compatibility. >People have complex rulesets based on the existing structure, >and I'd rather not screwup their ruleset completely. But couldn't you easily add a new rulechain for the ethernet rules ? That seems both clean and simple to me ? Besides, if we want to clean up, 5.0 is the time to do it... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message