From owner-freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Thu Aug 4 03:42:59 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05F37BAC0CE for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 03:42:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "vps1.elischer.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3BE5139D; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 03:42:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local (ppp121-45-226-8.lns20.per1.internode.on.net [121.45.226.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u743goEA039133 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 20:42:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Subject: Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11? To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" , lev@FreeBSD.org, Ian Smith References: <9229d4f7-8466-57b0-c954-117736102bd7@FreeBSD.org> <5755F0D3.9060909@FreeBSD.org> <5759DB79.10205@FreeBSD.org> <3d09497c-136c-e217-154c-ba00e6879c6f@freebsd.org> <20160616005016.A15883@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <64d6bdea-fa32-f16f-2fdd-abd33d54d04e@freebsd.org> <46d5cfde-c4ac-ebd0-3c13-2759037621f3@FreeBSD.org> <11a5d41b-109a-434b-e8e0-7ed2826a8cc9@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "Alexander V. Chernikov" , freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org From: Julian Elischer Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 11:42:45 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 03:42:59 -0000 On 4/08/2016 3:08 AM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > On 03.08.16 22:07, Lev Serebryakov wrote: >> On 03.08.2016 21:03, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: >> >>>> 1/ ability to use keep-state without an implicit check-state. <--- most >>>> important for me. (store-state)? >>>> 2/ ability to keep-state without actually doing it <---- less important >>>> for me. >>> So, if there are nobody against, I plan to commit this part in a several >>> days. >> Which implementation? Just curious, I could live with any, really. > This one > https://people.freebsd.org/~ae/ipfw.diff > > but with separate opcodes, I have come to the opinion, that this will > be more readable. > so, reading it. it appears that teh record-state saves a rule as a target but doesn't actually perform the rule, right? that needs to be made more clear in the man page you say " Instead, the firewall creates a dynamic rule and the search continues with the next rule." so it's a combination of #1 and #2 in my list. I think I originally thought of having just #1. A combination is less useful for me as you need to do: 20 skipto 400 tcp from table(2) to me setup record-state 21 skipto 400 tcp from table(2) to me setup to make the entire session do the same thing.