From owner-freebsd-security Sun Sep 27 10:19:32 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA17706 for freebsd-security-outgoing; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 10:19:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA17701 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 10:19:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA12024; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 19:14:09 +0200 (CEST) To: Ollivier Robert cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipfw In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 27 Sep 1998 16:58:09 +0200." <19980927165809.A26371@keltia.freenix.fr> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 19:14:08 +0200 Message-ID: <12022.906916448@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In message <19980927165809.A26371@keltia.freenix.fr>, Ollivier Robert writes: >According to Poul-Henning Kamp: >> * per interface input list >> * per interface output list >> * packet forwarding list >> * ip_input() list >> * ip_output() list >> >> Doing it would be simple, but people complained that configuring it would >> be too complex. > >Even having #1, #2 and #3 would be nice. In my experience with Network >Systems' routers (which have the 5 levels above), most people use the first >three most. ... for routers, and the last two most for hosts, although #1 and #2 will do the same thing on a one interface machine. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." "ttyv0" -- What UNIX calls a $20K state-of-the-art, 3D, hi-res color terminal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message