From owner-freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org  Fri Mar 11 07:32:43 2016
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
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 AA4C3ACC915
 for <freebsd-ipfw@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:32:43 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (unknown [IPv6:2602:304:b010:ef20::f2])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "gw.catspoiler.org", Issuer "gw.catspoiler.org" (not verified))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89F59F36;
 Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:32:43 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
 by gw.catspoiler.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u2B7WVNN017306;
 Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:32:35 -0800 (PST)
 (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <201603110732.u2B7WVNN017306@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:32:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: ipwf dummynet vs. kernel NAT and firewall rules
To: smithi@nimnet.asn.au
cc: feld@FreeBSD.org, julian@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org,
 fjwcash@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20160311151935.N61428@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions <freebsd-ipfw.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ipfw>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ipfw/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:32:43 -0000

On 11 Mar, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:35:41 -0600, Mark Felder wrote:
>  > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016, at 00:53, Ian Smith wrote:
>  > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 15:02:18 -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
>  > >  > On  9 Mar, Don Lewis wrote:
>  > >  > > On  9 Mar, Don Lewis wrote:
>  > >  > >> On  9 Mar, Don Lewis wrote:
>  > >  > >>> On  9 Mar, Freddie Cash wrote:
>  > >  > >>>> 
>  > >  > >>>> ?Do you have the sysctl net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass set to 0 or 1?
>  > >  > >>> 
>  > >  > >>> Aha, I've got it set to 1.
>  > > 
>  > > I observe that in 99 cases out of 100, the default of 1 is undesired,
>  > > but it's too late to do anything but advise people - thanks Freddie!
> 
>  > Is there any reason why we shouldn't just change the default for
>  > 11-RELEASE?
> 
> Julian fortunately said why more succinctly than I could have :)
> 
> Perhaps we could add to rc.firewall, just as an example where NAT 
> (either in-kernel or natd) is enabled and where it's being setup:
> 
>   ${fwcmd} disable one_pass
> 
> would at least indicate that it's generally the Right Thing To Do in 
> the NAT case, but we have no dummynet examples, let alone the several 
> other overloaded uses of one_pass, so still have to rely on folklore ..
> 
> That said, I've had zero success in offering a patch to rc.firewall, 
> enabling kernel NAT in the 'simple' ruleset .. which Don figured out 
> anyway.
> 
> Oh, and Don: I suppose you noticed that rc.firewall 'simple' ruleset 
> fails to allow any ICMP traffic at all?

Yes, I noticed that.  My local version is fixed.