From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4F99C43603 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:58:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (krantz.zx2c4.com [192.95.5.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F261205ED for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:58:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.ch header.i=@protonmail.ch header.b="kSUKhapQ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8F261205ED Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=protonmail.ch Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 808038ea; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:58:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id e4ebed13 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:58:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-40140.protonmail.ch (mail-40140.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.140]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 9009e9ff for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:58:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:58:11 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.ch; s=default; t=1576004299; bh=1zt5rBdqgwQYAZUUILVECzNrpvU9y0dO+28mV6e/rUg=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From; b=kSUKhapQ6wGep2GTkh35wtcmkMM1OlYP2OlDgvtR0yOvr0gejXi9aVfx46GGUOEEm 3MF4mbCp19Kk0Y/LVs362rCcQ1ifZH00l4ObZEAJ5rUjg19b7qlh4xhSDaf81zC9Ia gbq9a1gbFqnOIpfZaPLIuHmxymDSHzgQKEVVlb1Y= To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" From: Jordan Glover Subject: Re: [PATCH] wg-quick: linux: add support for nft and prefer it Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <20191210154850.577745-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20191210221215.56c2f30d@natsu> Feedback-ID: QEdvdaLhFJaqnofhWA-dldGwsuoeDdDw7vz0UPs8r8sanA3bIt8zJdf4aDqYKSy4gJuZ0WvFYJtvq21y6ge_uQ==:Ext:ProtonMail MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "jwollrath@web.de" , "wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com" X-BeenThere: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Jordan Glover List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Sender: "WireGuard" On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 5:36 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > On the other hand, if what you say is actually true in our case, and > nftables is utter crap, then perhaps we should scrap this nft(8) patch > all together and just keep pure iptables(8). DKG - you seemed to want > nft(8) support, though. How would you feel about that sort of > conclusion? > > Jason The only scenario where you really want to use nft is where iptables command doesn't exist. I don't know how realistic scenario it is but I assume it can happen in the wild. Otherwise calling iptables will take care of both iptables and nftables automatically if those are supported on system. That's why I proposed to invert current patch logic. Jordan _______________________________________________ WireGuard mailing list WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard