From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758994AbXJKVcd (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:32:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755784AbXJKVcY (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:32:24 -0400 Received: from [212.12.190.29] ([212.12.190.29]:33921 "EHLO raad.intranet" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754905AbXJKVcX (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:32:23 -0400 From: Al Boldi To: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: [RFD] iptables: mangle table obsoletes filter table Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:31:42 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: linux-net@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200710120031.42805.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org With the existence of the mangle table, how useful is the filter table? Other than requiring the REJECT target to be ported to the mangle table, is the filter table faster than the mangle table? If not, then shouldn't the filter table be obsoleted to avoid confusion? Thanks! -- Al