Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 4 Aug 2016 11:42:45 +0800
From:      Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>
To:        "Andrey V. Elsukov" <ae@FreeBSD.org>, lev@FreeBSD.org, Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>
Cc:        "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11?
Message-ID:  <a3e98e25-4c0d-56ad-5640-0b6f13ebeb21@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <ee745842-c33e-4e73-f84c-6eb11f283b51@FreeBSD.org>
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> <d7bef617-70a4-f761-7d09-9413eb720b11@freebsd.org> <64d6bdea-fa32-f16f-2fdd-abd33d54d04e@freebsd.org> <46d5cfde-c4ac-ebd0-3c13-2759037621f3@FreeBSD.org> <11a5d41b-109a-434b-e8e0-7ed2826a8cc9@FreeBSD.org> <ee745842-c33e-4e73-f84c-6eb11f283b51@FreeBSD.org>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
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.








Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a3e98e25-4c0d-56ad-5640-0b6f13ebeb21>