From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan 14 13:54:20 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 5890916A4CE
	for <ipfw@freebsd.org>; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:54:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shellma.zin.lublin.pl (shellma.zin.lublin.pl [212.182.126.68])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC6343D53
	for <ipfw@freebsd.org>; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:54:18 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from pawmal-posting@freebsd.lublin.pl)
Received: by shellma.zin.lublin.pl (Postfix, from userid 1018)
	id 781675F103; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:05:39 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:05:38 +0100
From: Pawel Malachowski <pawmal-posting@freebsd.lublin.pl>
To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
Message-ID: <20040114220538.GA72981@shellma.zin.lublin.pl>
References: <20040114082004.A43466@xorpc.icir.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20040114082004.A43466@xorpc.icir.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
cc: ipfw@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: semantics of 'not-applicable' options in ipfw ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions <freebsd-ipfw.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ipfw>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:54:20 -0000

On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:20:04AM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:

> As the subject says... what is people's opinion on the
> best semantics for 'not-applicable' options in ipfw rules ?
> 
> As an example, if i say (using ipfw2 syntax, for simplicity)
> 
> 	100 count src-port 100
> 	200 count not src-port 100
> 
> and i receive a fragment, or an ICMP packet (which does not have port
> information available), should it match rule 100, rule 200, none
> or both ? The current implementation in ipfw2 is to use binary
> logic, so the outcome of a 'not-applicable' option is FALSE,
> and its negation is TRUE (so in the above case rule 200 will succeed).

Ports are meaningful for TCP or UDP packets. If one uses src-port in rule,
he assumes such a rule is for TCP or UDP packets.
That's why I think rule 200 shouldn't match ICMP datagram. I also think
ambiguous rules should be forbidden. This will force users to work with
well planned rules. ;)


-- 
Paweł Małachowski