From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 1 14:35:07 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA31416A4CE for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:35:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.jrv.org (rrcs-24-73-246-106.sw.biz.rr.com [24.73.246.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D12743D46 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:35:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from james@jrv.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (zippy.housenet.jrv [192.168.3.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.jrv.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iB1EYmKm014197; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 08:34:56 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from james@jrv.org) Message-ID: <41ADD688.4090807@jrv.org> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 08:34:48 -0600 From: "James R. Van Artsalen" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Hay References: <41AC571E.2020503@jrv.org> <7261A3E8-42C2-11D9-AC2A-000A95A0BB90@bnc.net> <41ACBEDF.3020001@jrv.org> <200411302058.07224.max@love2party.net> <20041201095052.GA43515@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <20041201095052.GA43515@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Max Laier cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3 routing IPFW FWD'd packets? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:35:07 -0000 John Hay wrote: >On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:57:59PM +0100, Max Laier wrote: > > >>On Tuesday 30 November 2004 19:41, James R. Van Artsalen wrote: >> >> >>>>Packets sent to the directly reachable net 192.168.254/8 (rule 64000) >>>>seem to work. Is it possible that packets are somehow being routed >>>>after being FWD'd by IPFW? >>>> >>>> >Just apply the patch in kern/71910 and you should be happy again. It works >for me and a few others. > > > Thanks. But, if that is a problem then why is this code in ip_fastfwd.c not also a problem? Shouldn't this get the same change as kern/71910? #ifdef IPFIREWALL_FORWARD if (fwd_tag) { if (!in_localip(ip->ip_src) && !in_localaddr(ip->ip_dst)) dest.s_addr = ((struct sockaddr_in *)(fwd_tag+1))->sin_addr.s_addr; m_tag_delete(m, fwd_tag); } #endif /* IPFIREWALL_FORWARD */