Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:48:57 +0400
From:      Vladimir Budnev <vladimir.budnev@gmail.com>
To:        Eugene Grosbein <egrosbein@rdtc.ru>
Cc:        freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: IPFW hidden/broken rule? (Free 7.2)
Message-ID:  <CAAvRK97r0bC7KZyGeuiRQ=jG976TQAJxCSqTeDZ%2BTbKAXGJLqw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E706BC1.9030203@rdtc.ru>
References:  <4E7066CE.3070702@gmail.com> <4E706BC1.9030203@rdtc.ru>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
> 14.09.2011 15:33, Vladimir Budnev =D0=C9=DB=C5=D4:
>
> > So i think there are at least to questions:
> >
> > 1. Have anyone ever met such situation? Or may be something close to
> > this one with 'hidden' ipfw rules?
>
> Have you tried "ipfw -d -e show"?
>
>
Nope we didnt check those tables. But to be honest iI don't think there may
be connection tracking issue because it is allow ip to any rule:
04701 pipe tablearg ip from table(2) to any in via em0

And I'v wrote that we can catch packets with rule, by placing it before rul=
e
04701.Packets are captured by 04701 even with empty(not flushed) table 2.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAAvRK97r0bC7KZyGeuiRQ=jG976TQAJxCSqTeDZ%2BTbKAXGJLqw>