Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 12:13:34 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> To: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net> Cc: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com>, stable@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPFW (was: Re: -stable hangs at boot) Message-ID: <199602281913.MAA08403@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199602281910.MAA08395@rocky.sri.MT.net> References: <199602261926.MAA00360@rocky.sri.MT.net> <96Feb28.110530pst.177480@crevenia.parc.xerox.com> <199602281910.MAA08395@rocky.sri.MT.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams writes: > > >That reminds me. I haven't looked yet, but does the new code also > > >filter out routing information? The old code didn't (and other firewall > > >code I have used does). > > > > Sorry, this doesn't make much sense to me -- shouldn't "filtering routing > > information" just be another firewall rule? Seems like policy to me. > > The routing code didn't go through the firewall code in the previous > implementation, so there was no way for it to filter out routing > information. Man, I think I'm going to crawl into a hole today. I can't communicate at all effectively. What that should have said is: Routing packets didn't pass through the firewall code previously, so there was no way to filter it out. Sorry, Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602281913.MAA08403>