Thank you for your reply. What is the controversial modification ? can you elaborate it a bit more ? Linux has (almost) borderless modular design and flexible configuration to be built. May I assume the controversial modification is viewed from the architecture point of view ? Can you point me out (either mailing list or web site addressing this issue).
I am (roughly) thinking when netfilter has PREROUTING, FORWARD and POSTROUTING filter, maybe bridge should be defined like PREIP, BFORWARD and POSTIP ? Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Lennert Buytenhek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 12:52 PM To: indra g. harijono Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Bridge] Bridge and netfilter patch On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:39:57AM -0500, indra g. harijono wrote: > I am new here and happy to join this mailing list. > I was looking at a lot of use and necessity to use netfilter with bridge. > I am wondering, why the patch of netfilter is not just integrated into linux > distribution and carried through the linux development tree. The patch makes somewhat controversial modifications to the main kernel. That's why I haven't dared submitting it yet. > I am asking this, because I see some 'small' comments, questions and > confusion regarding the patch. Are there any issues for example, when I ask > 'can I use the linux kernel (e.g. 2.5.2)' ? I wouldn't use 2.5.2 :-) You should be able to run it just fine on 2.4.17 for example. cheers, Lennert _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/mailman/listinfo/bridge
