Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 4 Aug 2016 11:58:16 +0800
From:      Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>
To:        "Andrey V. Elsukov" <ae@FreeBSD.org>, lev@FreeBSD.org, Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>
Cc:        freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11?
Message-ID:  <b2580c8f-b279-a3cb-63ae-0c42667d3c35@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <a3e98e25-4c0d-56ad-5640-0b6f13ebeb21@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> <a3e98e25-4c0d-56ad-5640-0b6f13ebeb21@freebsd.org>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
So while thinking about states etc, it occured to me, what does THIS 
do on subsequent packets in the session?


10 skipto tablearg tcp from table(3) to me keep-state


On 4/08/2016 11:42 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b2580c8f-b279-a3cb-63ae-0c42667d3c35>