Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 00:12:37 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <ae@FreeBSD.org>, lev@FreeBSD.org, Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11? Message-ID: <3c3d7026-ea60-c0dd-527b-edd841274585@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <6c2ebc59-c5b8-5be0-8842-897b2de44d1f@FreeBSD.org> References: <9229d4f7-8466-57b0-c954-117736102bd7@FreeBSD.org> <5755F0D3.9060909@FreeBSD.org> <5759DB79.10205@FreeBSD.org> <3d09497c-136c-e217-154c-ba00e6879c6f@freebsd.org> <20160616005016.A15883@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <d7bef617-70a4-f761-7d09-9413eb720b11@freebsd.org> <64d6bdea-fa32-f16f-2fdd-abd33d54d04e@freebsd.org> <46d5cfde-c4ac-ebd0-3c13-2759037621f3@FreeBSD.org> <11a5d41b-109a-434b-e8e0-7ed2826a8cc9@FreeBSD.org> <ee745842-c33e-4e73-f84c-6eb11f283b51@FreeBSD.org> <a3e98e25-4c0d-56ad-5640-0b6f13ebeb21@freebsd.org> <6c2ebc59-c5b8-5be0-8842-897b2de44d1f@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/08/2016 6:50 PM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > On 04.08.16 06:42, Julian Elischer wrote: >> so it's a combination of #1 and #2 in my list. I think I originally >> thought of having just #1. >> >> A combination is less useful for me as you need to do: >> >> 20 skipto 400 tcp from table(2) to me setup record-state >> 21 skipto 400 tcp from table(2) to me setup >> to make the entire session do the same thing. > So, in your example what wrong with just using keep-state? > "record-state without immediate action" == "keep-state without implicit > check-state" needed to solve issues with NAT or something similar, that > was described by Lev. > because keep-state is a check-state for ALL packets going past, regardless of whether they match the pattern. at least that's what I have observed.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3c3d7026-ea60-c0dd-527b-edd841274585>