Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 00/10] Transparent proxying patches version 4

From: KOVACS Krisztian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 21:30:02 +0100

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