From owner-freebsd-net Mon Sep 14 05:45:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA29276 for freebsd-net-outgoing; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 05:45:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id FAA29205 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 05:44:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it) Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id MAA22096; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:52:52 +0200 From: Luigi Rizzo Message-Id: <199809141052.MAA22096@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: Will the TEE function of IPFW be ever implemented/necessary ? To: peter@netplex.com.au (Peter Wemm) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:52:51 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: archie@whistle.com, net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199809141235.UAA10513@spinner.netplex.com.au> from "Peter Wemm" at Sep 14, 98 08:35:16 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > but you said a few people have asked for it! so what they want it for... > > One thing that ipfilter can do that ipfw can't untill tee is implemented > is intercept packets. Suppose a scenario arrises where a box has a heap > of ppp connections and one needs logging or tracing and it needs to be > done discretely. ipfilter can forward another copy of the packets to > another host (eg: outside of crackers vision) for logging. > > The main difference is that you can have packets logged that wouldn't > otherwise be visible on an ethernet segment, eg: if a ppp user was trying can you recall why tcpdump wouldn't do the job ? i don't think it is limited to eth device isn;t it ? cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message