From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Jun 27 18:35:18 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA19642
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 18:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA19631;
          Thu, 27 Jun 1996 18:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA12732; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:35:08 -0600 (MDT)
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:35:08 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <199606280135.TAA12732@rocky.mt.sri.com>
From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
To: current@freebsd.org
CC: phk@freebsd.org, alex@freebsd.org
Subject: IPFW (mis)feature
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Why doesn't ipfw(8) allow me to specify the services using the names out
of /etc/services?  I *used* to be able to specify it using the service
names, and I don't know why this is removed (but at least it's
documented).

>From the man-page:
  Service names (from 
  .Pa /etc/services )
  may not be used instead of a numeric port value.
  Also, note that a range may only be specified as the first value,
  and the port list is limited to
  .Nm IP_FW_MAX_PORTS

All of the other firewall products I have allow me to use the service
names as it makes 'reading' the rules much easier.



Nate