From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 4 13:13:02 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB170496; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:13:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru [IPv6:2a01:4f8:131:60a2::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BCA825C; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:13:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nat.in.devexperts.com [89.113.128.63]) (Authenticated sender: lev@serebryakov.spb.ru) by onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A7BE5C002; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 16:13:01 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <54D21ADD.2090209@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:13:01 +0300 From: Lev Serebryakov Reply-To: lev@FreeBSD.org Organization: FreeBSD User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Smith , Julian Elischer Subject: Re: [RFC][patch] Two new actions: state-allow and state-deny References: <54CFCD45.9070304@FreeBSD.org> <20150203205715.A38620@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <54D0A1AA.4080402@FreeBSD.org> <54D1AA60.4030907@freebsd.org> <54D1E4D4.10106@FreeBSD.org> <54D1FE72.1020508@freebsd.org> <20150204231922.X38620@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <54D2188D.5080800@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <54D2188D.5080800@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 13:13:02 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 04.02.2015 16:03, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > To be honest, I want add not only "keep-state-only" (pure (1)), > but, also have "keep-state-do-action-no-check" to have (1) + (3) > without (2). Ideally, here should not be implicit "check-state" at all, and should be two options to rule: (1) keep-state (2) skip-immediate-action So, current "keep-state" becomes two-rules: check-state all from any to any keep-state And all other variants are possible too, like keep-state skip-action and meaningless, but still possible, skip-immediate-action It is hard to add now in backward-compatible way, though. But may be... May be... I should think! It looks like doable on second glance, and better (more flexible & orthogonal) that my current proposal! - -- // Lev Serebryakov -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJU0hrdXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRGOTZEMUNBMEI1RjQzMThCNjc0QjMzMEFF QUIwM0M1OEJGREM0NzhGAAoJEOqwPFi/3EePGFcP/0CpmLVadnVjQqC+PLQVpT4E cqLy5RfE4D587JeaXfoDher7J/WJj02NKJWkuhZqkvuZAVvFx5xiyl63X9yR1ASR a8rHGkM9pa4wbQ9XA2YKlhsaVntQtmmk1/qyp9AZecX/aZl6taWualeRCPGgNSvC lP6JdUCTelUIjlGwvsKI4Xu9ljuV59PaYh3SxLXxQSuyr5CA1ayRjT5e6Mp7SLPk gfy38Cq7PmrwrQAtkYfcP8K9fYTpnHaKqXYKpELSIqbpKGUcB0AnloXg9u2fJbmD Ux8lf0MvpDOiw0UfcHaypluLzU0/vuWE9EwyXe4p6GbdWjd9YXwgkbMsCWcR5lbT KJrAo0Jk2//blLFtKNDSLHb3JpKjSQkVRE/dhNOr066m682xnloPxFPE1p1e79P8 9D4Yi/ii2CGR15tP9keNjnDEOvO5JSSD+kHH/elUyuHye++UjKKNJoDCp5JIopFr SJ7NHYyVhlMmIMWIQeXUIRoNxblv9C5C9G2k7nBMlaxWN8VG0AKIerRyHTrEtwzt 0M9Tb6Et7dXULvqR0U+PgXvOLDo+DmmYf5cZiUCsVnLba0UwcWt7i2qWsA9KmQEE ZqTaVz8cJSkHybQLqlGtIwMfWgh7s6XSAjaPgk0OviDNCwTs9Ry/6QRPpCnkcC5p wsN8ML5mL59HqlkIvTxU =gWCG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----