From owner-freebsd-current Sat Jan 8 2:44: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A1BC14DA4 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 02:44:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost.freebsd.dk [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13451; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 11:43:25 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" , Patrick Bihan-Faou , Harold Gutch , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, Nate Williams Subject: Re: ipfw optimizations In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 08 Jan 2000 10:29:25 +0100." <200001080929.KAA09763@info.iet.unipi.it> Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 11:43:25 +0100 Message-ID: <13449.947328205@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <200001080929.KAA09763@info.iet.unipi.it>, Luigi Rizzo writes: >> I think the general syntax would be if you could say "for one of my >> own IP#" that would be very powerful: >> >> add allow tcp from any to me 22 >> add deny tcp from any to not me 22 > >the 'me' thing is relatively simple to implement, it suffices to scan >the list of IP associated with all interfaces. Can be time-consuming. But less so that having one ipfw rule for each interface :-) -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message