From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 19 20:43:54 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE621065674 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:43:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fjwcash@gmail.com) Received: from smtp.sd73.bc.ca (smtp.sd73.bc.ca [142.24.13.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A3AD8FC22 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:43:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fjwcash@gmail.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.sd73.bc.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE691A000B28 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:43:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at smtp.sd73.bc.ca Received: from smtp.sd73.bc.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.sd73.bc.ca [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id zFUmZufQtAbW for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from coal.local (s10.sbo [192.168.0.10]) by smtp.sd73.bc.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6611A000B14 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:43:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Freddie Cash Organization: School District 73 To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:43:45 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200803191334.54510.fjwcash@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200803191334.54510.fjwcash@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200803191343.45516.fjwcash@gmail.com> Subject: Re: "established" on { tcp or udp } rules X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:43:54 -0000 On March 19, 2008 01:34 pm Freddie Cash wrote: > Just curious if the following rule will work correctly. It is accepted > by the ipfw command. In the process of working out a test for it, but > thought I'd ask here as well, just to be sure. > > ipfw add { tcp or udp } from me to any 53 out xmit fxp0 > ipfw add { tcp or udp } from any 53 to me in recv fxp0 established > > Will the UDP packets go through correctly, even though "established" > has no meaning for UDP streams, and the ipfw command will barf if you > use it with just "ipfw add udp" rules? Hmm, from the looks of things, it doesn't work. Even though it specifies both tcp and udp, the rule only matches tcp packets from an established connection. Perhaps a warning or error should be given when you try to use TCP options on rules that aren't TCP-specific? Or am I missing something here? -- Freddie Cash fjwcash@gmail.com