Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:56:10 -0800
From:      Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com>
To:        Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
Cc:        "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@nitro.dk>, freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Sanity check in ipfw(8)
Message-ID:  <3E2CE0FA.2080301@tenebras.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030121004353.GF351@nitro.dk>
References:  <20030121004353.GF351@nitro.dk> <20030120165940.A65713@xorpc.icir.org> <20030121012046.GG351@nitro.dk> <20030120173223.A83271@xorpc.icir.org>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Luigi Rizzo wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 02:20:47AM +0100, Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
> ...
>
> >Ok - the extra check was only to make the user aware simple errors (that
> >ipfw1 did not allow). If you don't think the checks should be there then
> >I can live with that so the PR can be closed.
>
>
> yes i honestly believe that it is better to avoid the userland code
> being too smart. E.g. ipfw accepts things such as
>
> 	allow ip from any to any 53
>
> which matches both tcp and udp to port 53 -- ipfw1 did not accept
> this, and needed two rules for this very common thing.


Shi'ite!  Documentation?


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E2CE0FA.2080301>