Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:23:52 +0200 From: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie.le-hen@epita.fr> To: Charlie Schluting <charlie@schluting.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: packet order, ipf or ipfw Message-ID: <20040728232352.GB8838@tuileries.epita.fr> Resent-Message-ID: <200407290650.i6T6otg00987@epita.fr> In-Reply-To: <41081955.5090204@schluting.com> References: <41081955.5090204@schluting.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello Charlie, > I'm running ipf because I like it ...but now I need to use ipfw's pipe > feature. I was thinking that I could just run both, and keep all my > rules in ipf, then in ipfw: limit bandwidth for a few vlans, then allow all. > > It didn't work (no rate-limiting happened).. and I'm thinking that ipf > is passing the packets and bypassing ipfw? Or something.. > > So, what is the order, if I'm running ipf AND ipfw at the same time? > Will it work at all in this manner? Max Laier told you about FreeBSD 5.x which includes PFIL_HOOKS, but since you did not mention whether you are using -STABLE or -CURRENT. AFAIK, ipf takes precedence on ipfw for incoming packets on -STABLE, and this is of course symmetric for outgoing ones. But you should be warned that using ipnat(8) in conjunction to ipfw pipes may lead to an incorrect behaviour : http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/61685 Hackers, is this bug still alive in -CURRENT ? Best regards, -- Jeremie LE HEN aka TtZ/TataZ jeremie.le-hen@epita.fr ttz@epita.fr Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040728232352.GB8838>