Hi Evgeniy, On Wednesday 03 January 2007 18:23, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > Out of curiosity, would you use netchannels [1] if the implementation > will be much broader? Since what you have created works exactly like > netchannels netfilter NAT target (although it does not change ports, > but it can be trivially extended), but without all existing netfilter > overhead and without hacks in core TCP/UDP/IP/route code.
Indeed, a netchannels based implementation would be very nice. Combined with a userspace network stack I think this could be a very powerful tool, especially for people doing dirty tricks -- like transparent proxying in our case. However, I think that adopting netchannels now would be an enormous work on our part. Of course, personally I'm really interested in netchannels and the related projects, but I agree with Harald that we still have a long way to go before being able to switch to netchannels. And I definitely _hate_ the previous incarnations of our tproxy patches enough that even this patchset seems acceptable for me. ;) -- Regards, Krisztian Kovacs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
