From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 6 15:20:48 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC76716A41B for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:20:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chris@korcett.com) Received: from smtpout10.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpout10-04.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.238]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9AE5013C478 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:20:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chris@korcett.com) Received: (qmail 23901 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2007 14:54:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (71.42.72.220) by smtpout10-04.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.238) with ESMTP; 06 Sep 2007 14:54:06 -0000 Message-ID: <46E0146D.8060508@korcett.com> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:53:33 -0500 From: Chris Bowman Organization: KHI User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paolo Pisati References: <46DF68EE.1010905@austin.rr.com> <20070906123417.GA95067@tin.it> In-Reply-To: <20070906123417.GA95067@tin.it> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050804050202030505010607" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, "Chris Bowman \(Home\)" Subject: Re: [6.x patchset] Ipfw nat and libalias modules X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: chris@korcett.com List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:20:49 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050804050202030505010607 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was indeed the tarball downloaded from http://ubi8.imc.pi.cnr.it/~flag/libalias/libalias.tgz ... Thank you, I'll give the 7.x code a try. Paolo Pisati wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 09:41:50PM -0500, Chris Bowman (Home) wrote: > >> I was recently testing the in kernel nat patch, which is an absolutely >> wonderful addition in my opinion. I have however run into one issue, when >> for example I do the following : >> >> ipfw nat 10 config ip 2.2.2.2 >> > [snip] > > Where did you get the 6.x patch? Did you find a tarball around or > you backported the code from 7.x? > > In the first case, that patch is old and buggy, and AFAIK the bug you encountered > was due to an uninitialized conditional variable. > > bye, > P. > > > -- --------------050804050202030505010607--