On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:36:51AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> nftables has been proported as "better" for years, yet large
> institutions did not migrate to it. In fact, they explicitly
> disabled NFTABLES in their kernel config.
It's like with any migration. People were using ipchains for a long
time even after iptables existed. Many people simply don't care
about packet filter performance. It's only a small fraction of their
entire CPU workload, so probably not worth optimzing. For dedicated
firewall devices, that's of course a different story.
How long did it take for the getrandom() system call to be actually used
by applications [even glibc!]? Or many other things that get introduced
in the kernel?
I can just as well ask how many millions of users / devices are already
using eBPF or XDP? How many major Linux distributions are enabling
and/or supporting this yet? I'm not criticizing, I'm just attempting
to illustrate that technologies always take time to establish
themselves - and of course those people with the biggest benefit (and
knowing about it) will be the early adopters, while many others have no
motivation to migrate.
> In my opinion, any resistence to integration with eBPF and XDP will
> lead to even less adoption of netfilter as a technology.
1) I may not have made my point clear, sorry. I have not argued against
any integration with eBPF, I have just made some specific arguments
against specific aspects of the current RFC.
2) You have indicated repeatedly that there are millions and millions of
netfilter/iptables users out there. So I fail to see the "even less
adoption" part. "Even less" than those millions and millions? SCNR.
- Harald Welte <lafo...@gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)