Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:06:41 -0500 From: "fbsd_user" <fbsd_user@a1poweruser.com> To: "Dan Pelleg" <daniel+bsd@pelleg.org> Cc: "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG" <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: IPFW 'keep state' & 'limit' Message-ID: <MIEPLLIBMLEEABPDBIEGOEFLFEAA.fbsd_user@a1poweruser.com> In-Reply-To: <u2s4quya8p6.fsf@pelleg.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The FBSD 5.2 man IPFW does not say anything different that the 4.9 man IPFW. Are you saying the man doc in 5.2 is wrong? 5.2 is using the ipfw2 code for IPFIREWALL I believe. Documenting the fact that 'limit' performs the same function as 'keep state' in additional to 'limit' stated purpose is very important information. Also that 'limit' and 'keep state' can not be coded together is another very important piece information that need to be documented in the man IPFW data. Should this be submitted as an problem report? -----Original Message----- From: Dan Pelleg [mailto:daniel+bsd@pelleg.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:47 AM To: fbsd_user@a1poweruser.com Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG Subject: Re: IPFW 'keep state' & 'limit' "fbsd_user" <fbsd_user@a1poweruser.com> writes: > Reading the man page on IPFW rule syntax, I get the impression that > the 'limit' option uses the stateful dynamic rules table. But it's > unclear whether 'keep state' and limit can be used on the same rule, > or if the limit option performs the 'keep state' function in > addition to the limit function. > > So as an example > > $cmd 00390 allow tcp from any to any 22 in via dc0 setup keep-state > limit src-addr 3 > > will this work? > limit implies keep-state, and you should really specify one or the other. If you specify both, ipfw won't complain, but ipfw2 will. So it's best to not do that. -- Dan Pelleg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?MIEPLLIBMLEEABPDBIEGOEFLFEAA.fbsd_user>