From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Leblond Subject: Re: Resend [patch 2/2] iptables: add random option to SNAT Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:55:33 +0100 Message-ID: <1170690933.5631.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1170681950.5631.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45C747D9.102@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-8arhKg79Gl8j06k+17m5" Cc: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: In-Reply-To: <45C747D9.102@trash.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org --=-8arhKg79Gl8j06k+17m5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Le lundi 05 f=E9vrier 2007 =E0 16:06 +0100, Patrick McHardy a =E9crit : > Eric Leblond wrote: > I'm in the process of preparing my patches for upstream submission > (which include your random patch). Great. > I'll look into the userspace patch > after that, I'm not a big fan of the :random syntax. I make this choice because iptables had the capabilities to have multiple NAT ranges and hence randomization has to be linked with the range. But we can also assume to have a per iptables rule switch. I can rewrite my patch in this way if you want. BR, --=20 =C9ric Leblond, eleblond@inl.fr T=E9l=E9phone : 01 44 89 46 39, Fax : 01 44 89 45 01 INL, http://www.inl.fr --=-8arhKg79Gl8j06k+17m5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBFx1N1nxA7CdMWjzIRArVfAJ91rhsmOTM8QYhDeISky5SvGenaogCggJa6 mjEwaScW++2WhipZiMRAnoY= =31QW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-8arhKg79Gl8j06k+17m5--