From owner-freebsd-net Wed Oct 25 7:15:10 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from slarti.muc.de (slarti.muc.de [193.149.48.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A613437B479 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 07:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 20030 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2000 14:21:42 -0000 Received: from jhs.muc.de (193.149.49.84) by slarti.muc.de with SMTP; 25 Oct 2000 14:21:42 -0000 Received: from park.jhs.private (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jhs.muc.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e9P7qLX29809; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 07:54:09 GMT (envelope-from jhs@park.jhs.private) Message-Id: <200010250754.e9P7qLX29809@jhs.muc.de> To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: Mike Hoskins , Rudy , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /kernel: Too many dynamic rules, sorry Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:52:20 +0200 From: "Julian Stacey Jhs@jhs.muc.de" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > Summer 1999 or before, > > I ran out of space for all my rules, I append my > > Julian, i think you are talking about a different thing. > > The original posting was referring to the stateful (aka dynamic) ipfw > rules, which were introduced in Jan2000. > > The patches which someone else mentioned were related to configuring > timeouts on stateful rules. > > Your patches just modify the increment in autonumbering ipfw rules. Yup, just a tiny change (after a lot of code scanning). > [and the only reason i spotted this is the "Summer 1999" ...] > > cheers > luigi Ah, sorry, my mail stream was disrupted so I came back on line half way through this thread, & off at a tangent, sorry ! (PS I have read about dynamic rules now I recall, but not tried them yet). Julian - Julian Stacey http://bim.bsn.com/~jhs/ Munich Unix Consultant. Free BSD Unix with 3900 packages & sources. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message