Hi,

...

could the tproxy developers provide a patch against 2.6.11 or .12? The 2.6.10/patch_tree/01-nat_reservations.diff does not apply very well on .11 because of changes in the expect* functions, and I got almost no clue how to fix it (_and_ have it work afterwards ;)

01-nat_reservations.diff is a bit problematic, since the expectation and NAT infrastructure in 2.6.11 has been substantially simplified. If you don't want to use NAT reservations (TProxy can work without them in most cases), then I could prepare a 2.6.1{1,2} version really fast. Porting the NAT reservation part of the patchset definitely needs more work...

Well, I did not intend to use reservations at all, but TProxy uses some of it, e.g. __..._new_hash(). Would be great if you could prepare it. 2.6.11 to 2.6.12-rc5 seem to be the same wrt.* netfilter, mostly. Jan Engelhardt -- * with respect to | Gesellschaft fuer Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung Goettingen, | Am Fassberg, 37077 Goettingen, www.gwdg.de

Hi,

NAT reservations are completely optional for TProxy - although

yes, I've already deducted that from all the #ifs and #endifs. Though, it seemed to me like it wasnot in one place.

At the moment I don't have the time necessary to update NAT reservations for 2.6.11 (sorry, not my decision), but as I've already mentioned if you only need tproxy then it could even work without NAT reservation support.

That's my case: I do not need reservations. In fact, I never knew them before, so I probably will not need them in the next time either. Jan Engelhardt -- | Gesellschaft fuer Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung Goettingen, | Am Fassberg, 37077 Goettingen, www.gwdg.de

Hi, 2005-06-16, cs keltezéssel 16.10-kor Jan Engelhardt ezt írta:

Well, I do not want to push, but I'd need it someday. :)

In progress... -- Regards, Krisztian Kovacs