From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jun 9 06:04:59 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA14077 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 06:04:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from echonyc.com (echonyc.com [198.67.15.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA14065 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 06:04:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from benedict@echonyc.com) Received: from localhost (benedict@localhost) by echonyc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA11782; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:01:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:01:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Snob Art Genre Reply-To: ben@rosengart.com To: Tom Torrance cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPFW problem? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Tom Torrance wrote: > The sample file to the contrary, it appears that ipfw will not > allow the "established" keyword for the "allow icmp" case. > > Is this a misunderstanding on my part or a genuine fault"? 'Established' matches on the ACK bit to make sure a packet is part of an established connection, right? It's a misunderstanding: ICMP is connectionless. > Is there another way to allow ICMP only as part of the TCP protocol? I'm not sure I understand this. ICMP is logically at the same level as TCP, it goes over IP. Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message