From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Aug 29 17:55:38 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A94106567A
	for <questions@freebsd.org>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:55:38 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from steve@ibctech.ca)
Received: from ibctech.ca (v6.ibctech.ca [IPv6:2607:f118::b6])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C9BD8FC08
	for <questions@freebsd.org>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:55:38 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from steve@ibctech.ca)
Received: (qmail 27420 invoked by uid 89); 29 Aug 2008 18:04:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?IPv6:2607:f118::5?)
	(steve@ibctech.ca@2607:f118::5)
	by 2607:f118::b6 with ESMTPA; 29 Aug 2008 18:04:03 -0000
Message-ID: <48B83820.8040200@ibctech.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:55:44 -0400
From: Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: questions@freebsd.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 
Subject: IPFW: Is keep/check-state inherent?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:55:38 -0000

Hi everyone,

I can't recall for certain, but not so long ago, I either read or heard 
about IPFW having implicit keep-state and check-state.

Is it true that I can now omit these keywords in my rulesets?

Steve