[PATCH] wg-quick: linux: add support for nft and prefer it
Jason A. Donenfeld
Jason at zx2c4.com
Tue Dec 10 20:15:24 CET 2019
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 7:58 PM Jordan Glover
<Golden_Miller83 at protonmail.ch> wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 5:36 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason at zx2c4.com> 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.
I reason about things a bit differently. For me, the decision is
between these two categories:
A) iptables-nft points to iptables and is available for people who
want a nft-only system. So, code against the iptables API, and mandate
that users either have iptables or iptables-nft installed, which isn't
unreasonable, considering the easy availability of each.
B) nft is the future and should be used whenever available. Support
iptables as a fallback though for old systems, and remove it as soon
as we can.
Attitudes that fall somewhere between (A) and (B) are much less
interesting to me.
More information about the WireGuard