Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:35:20 -0600
From:      Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
To:        Achim Patzner <ap@bnc.net>
Cc:        Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.ORG>, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: securelevel and ipfw zero
Message-ID:  <199907271735.LAA26067@mt.sri.com>
In-Reply-To: <19990727193349.K58970@bnc.net>
References:  <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907262255510.35843-100000@janus.syracuse.net> <199907270307.UAA49737@apollo.backplane.com> <199907271712.LAA25861@mt.sri.com> <19990727193349.K58970@bnc.net>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
> > How do you figure?  Currently, the kernel will quit 'logging' denied
> > packets when the counter reaches a specific (compiled-in) number.
>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Then what is
> 
> net.inet.ip.fw.verbose_limit: 0

Well I'll be.  You learn something new everyday. :)

> made for and why does it help changing it? 8-)

Ahh.  However, unfortunately, this 'limit' changes *all* of the per-rule
counters, when in fact you may only want to change a single counter.



Nate


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199907271735.LAA26067>